U. S. FEDERAL COURT
Middle District of Tampa, Florida


CIVIL CASE NUMBER 8:07-CV-00308-T-23MSS

Ruggero Maria Santilli

PLAINTIFF

K. K. Phua, River Edge, NJ
K. K. Phua, Registered Agent, \\World Scientific Publish. Co., Inc., New Jersey
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
Fabio Cardone}, Roma, Italy,
Roberto Mignani}, Rome, Italy,
Alessio Marrani}, Rome, Italy,
Istituto NaZionale Fisica Nucleare, Rome, Italy,
Consiglio Nazionale Ricerche, Roma, Italy,
Universita' di Roma Tre, Rome, Italy,
Universita' dell'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy

DEFENDANTS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT DATED AUGUST 10, 2007

FOREWORD
1. The plaintiff Ruggero Maria Santilli, a senior, a U. S. scientist with curriculum appended in Exhibit A, states: to have followed the sound request by the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday contained in the Order dated August 8, 2007; to have contacted the Bars Associations in Tampa., Clearwater and St. Petersburg; to have paid the requested fees; and to have secured in this way the names and phone number of various local attorneys accredited at the U. S. Federal District Court, a list of which is available on request. Unfortunately, despite the full availability of all the necessary money for a large retainer, none of the attorneys consulted could accept the representation of the case for the evident reason that they cannot understand its content due to its post Ph. D. level in physics and mathematics, under which condition their possible representation would raise issues pertaining to ethics and accountability at law.

2. Therefore, the plaintiff has no other choice than that of filing this Second Amended Complaint {\it pro se} by following as strictly as possible the Order by the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday dated August 28, 2007. Nevertheless, some of the consulted attorneys have expressed interest in assuming the representation of the lawsuit when advanced to such a point to have independent testimonials by experts in mathematicians and physics permitting them to form their objective evaluation of the merits or lack thereof. Hence, the plaintiff pledges to continue seeking legal representation as soon as said conditions will allow it, and prays the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday for leniency in regard to the plaintiff's lack of legal expertise, of course, when appropriate under and permitted by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.

OUTLINE OF THE CASE
3. Following a lifetime of research, the plaintiff has developed an original body of works internationally known under the name of "Santilli's isotopies (or,. more technically, "Santilli Lie-isotopic lifting") of special relativity, of the Minkowski space, and of the Lorentz symmetries" outlined with scientific reference in Exhibit B, herein appended for the benefit of qualified experts contemplated by the plaintiff for possible appearance in the case and/or for possible release of affidavits. As a result of these studies, the plaintiff has received various honors identified in part in Exhibit A, and used to receive invitations as keynote speaker to various international scientific meetings, participations in research grounds, and similar scientific activities.

4. The plaintiff has duly copyrighted all his most important works beginning in 1992 as documented in Exhibit C that includes a copy of the list of copyrights as well as copies of the official registrations at the U. S. Copyright Office. To avoid a prohibitive length of this Second Amended Complaint, a few samples of scientific publications copyrighted by the plaintiff are appended in Exhibit D under the proviso that all copyrighted works are assumed as appended, and be an integral part of this Second Amended Complaint, due to their character of being public documents available in scientific libraries.

5. Defendants F. Cardone, R. Mignani, and others. explicitly recognized the plaintiff's paternity of said theories in scientific publications up to 1992, as documented in Exhibit E containing publications authored by said defendants. For instance, in Exhibit E1 one can read the acknowledgment of paternity by defendant Mignani beginning with the Abstract of said publication with the words "Santilli Lie-isotopic lifting of special relativity", and then continuing with the full aknocledgment of paternity in the body of work E1 with full and proper quotation of the plaintiff copyrighted works.

6. Subsequently, under to the financial, logistic and other assistance by various corporations and institutions, defendants F. Cardone, R. Mignani and A. Marrani authored a series of publications in direct violation of the plaintiff copyrighted works. In fact, plaintiff's works on the "isotopies of special relativity, of the Minkowski space and of the Lorentz symmetry" were copied ad litteram word by word, statement by statement and symbol by symbol but presented under the fraudulent name of "deformations of special relativity, of the Minkowski space and of the Lorentz symmetry" without the quotation of their origination in 1983 as per Exhibit D1.

7. Samples of the defendants works infringing the copyrights owned by the plaintiff are appended in Exhibits F and G. However, the plagiarizing work listed in these Exhibits is only part of the works by the defendants infringing the plaintiff's intellectual property, since the same defendants have published a considerable number of additional works currently under identification (see, exempli gratia, the works by said defendants marked in the reference of Exhibit F), which marked works are under identification. Hence, the plaintiff reserves the right to reach a more complete identification of the copyright infringing works by the defendants following the due discovery process and other means.

8. Therefore, this lawsuit was filed by the plaintiff on grounds of alleged copyrights infringement as well as other charges against defendants Cardone., Mignani and Marrani as well as their corporate and institutional supporters, which charges are identified and documented on an individual basis in the various counts below to follow as close as possible said Order of the Honorable Judge. Additionally, the plaintiff plans to reach a more accurate identifications of claims by the individual defendants following a due discovery process.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. Rule 28 U.S.C.S. paragraph 1338 states that "the Federal District Court shall have the original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks..." Hence, the jurisdiction of the U. S. Federal District Court is beyond doubt in this case.

10. The plaintiff is a senior, 72 years old, retired U. S. scientist residing in the town of Palm Harbor, Florida. Hence, the U. S. Federal Court, the Middlesex District in Tampa Florida, is the correct jurisdiction and venue applicable for the plaintiff.

11. Said jurisdiction is also applicable to all defendants because, in accordance with said Rule as well as other Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, and as documented below, the corporate defendants, the institutional defendants and the individual defendants have been engaged in selling, marketing, advertising, and promoting books, journals, conventional publications and electronic publications in the State of Florida, as well as in the rest of the world by therefore deriving an income from their business in the State of Florida.

\ COUNT 1: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
against defendants K. K/ Phua (Phua) and World Scientific (WS)

12. Plaintiff states that defendants Phua and WS published in the year 2004 the book entitled "Energy and Geometry, an Introduction to Deformed Special Relativity," with main parts reproduced in Exhibit F, which book contains a verbatim copy of the plaintiff works in Exhibits D copyrighted as per documentation in Exhibit C, thus perpetrating a plagiarism as well as a paternity fraud.

13. The jurisdiction in this case is established beyond credible doubt by the fact that defendants Phua and WS secures a financial income and other benefits via its sales, promotions and advertisements, specifically, in the state of Florida via booksellers, electronic sales and direct sales to individuals and institutions.

14. The infringements of copyrights, plagiarism and paternity fraud by defendants Phua and WS begins with the title of the work in Exhibit F since it alleges novelty with the words "Deformed Special Relativity" that should have been instead "Santilli Isotopies of Special Relativity" as admitted by the very same defendants in works up to 1992, as one can read beginning from the abstract of work E1 that, when speaking of the same theories, states"Santilli Lie-isotopic lifting of special relativity".

15. The infringements of copyrights, plagiarism and paternity fraud then continues with the content of the book in Exhibit F. For instance, the section entitled "Deformed Minkowski space" is a copy of the corresponding section in plaintiff's works such as those in (but not limited to) Exhibit D, including the use of the same symbols "b" to represent deviations from the Minkowski space, as one can see with a comparison with copyrighted work D1, equation (2) page 546. The words used for the "deformation" of the Minkowski space are also identical to those used in copyrighted works. A clear additional violation of the plaintiff copyrights also occurs for the "deformed Lorentz symmetry (or transformations)" (Exhibit F, page 21 on) that are identical, symbol by symbol, to the plaintiff "isotopies of the Lorentz symmetry (or transformations)" (Exhibits D), including the verbatim copy of the text used for their derivation.

16. The infringements of copyrights, plagiarism and paternity fraud is also perpetrated as follows. in the plagiarizing work in Exhibit F, page 7, when introducing the "deformation" of the Minkowski metric, equation (2.2), defendants Cardone and Mignani quote works 3-5 that, as one can see in the references of Exhibit F, solely relates to works by the defendants in the 1990s, while they should have quoted the plaintiff copyrighted work D1 of 1983, work D2 of 1993, that is universally acknowledge as the origination of the theory. Hence, the infringement of copyrights, plagiarism and paternity fraud has been perpetrated by defendants Phua and WS by allowing defendants Cardone and Mignani, by usurping and stealing the paternity of the theory via the quotation on that central and initiating point of their own works 3-5, rather than plaintiff original work D1 of 1983 and D2 of 1993.

17. This honorable Court should be aware that defendants Phua and WS has additionally assisted defendants Cardone and Mignani to publish further fraudulent papers, such as the paper authored by said defendants in the journal "Modern Physics A", Vol. 14, page 3799 (1999), since the journal "Modern Physics A" is owned, published and sold by Phya and WS in Florida, as well as all over the world.

18. The plaintiff contacted Mr. K. K. Phua, president of WS with a respectful letter in attached in Exhibit H requesting the immediate cessation of the sale, advertisement and promotion of the plagiarizing work reproduced in Exhibit F as well as halting the publication in his scientific journal of additional papers by defendant Cardone, Mignani and Marrani constituting clear paternity fraud. Unfortunately, Mr. K. K. Phua elected to ignore completely the plaintiff respectful request, and continue to sell, advertise and distribute the plagiarizing work ion Exhibit F in Florida as well as in the rest of the world, thus leaving the plaintiff with no other choice than that of filing this lawsuit.

19. In view of this action plaintiff has suffered severe injuries and damages in his professional standing in the scientific community as well as, lack of the income that plaintiff derives from his work and in other matters.

21. The Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday should be informed that K. K. Phua, president of defendant WS, has evaded the service by the local sheriff of the Summon of the first Complaint, as filed in the case, and evaded the service of the Amended Complaint, as documented in Exhibit O (see the section of Certificate of Service). Consequently, the plaintiff is forced to serve the third Summon for this Second Amended Complaint to the New Jersey Business Service Bureau. with copies to defendants Phiua and WS addresses. In the event of additional evasion of service and additional lack of election by defendants Phua and WS of a legal representative for this lawsuit, the plaintiff reserves the option of filing a Motion for the addition as defendants all booksellers, distributors and promoters of World Scientific Publications in the world. Additionally, it is not clear as to whether defendant WS is operating legally in the U. S. A., that is, via a duly recorded and legally responsible company. In fact, it is possible that defendant Phua has evaded service on grounds that his company is not in good standing for the State of New Jersey, as the discovery process will ascertain in due time, yet it remains fully operational in selling plagiarizing works. These and other equivocal occurrences have requested the addition of defendant K. K. Phua as an individual.

20. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment of \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant K. K. Phua and/or defendant World Scientific to plaintiff Santilli as financial compensation for copyright infringements, and/or plagiarism and/or paternity fraud, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

22. Moreover, the about Count 1 and the subsequent Counts 2, 3, 4 are here filed under the proviso that the plaintiff may elect filing a Motion for their extension and application to said booksellers, distributors and promoters of World Scientific Publications.

COUNT 2: CONVERSION
against defendants K. K. Phua and World Scientific (WS)

23. This is an action against defendants Phua and WS for conversion. Beginning from the year 2004, defendants Phua and WS converted for its own financial and other benefits the copyrighted work by the plaintiff, therefore depriving the plaintiff of his own property.

24. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment of \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant K. K. Phus and defendant World Scientific to plaintiff Santilli as financial compensation for conversion, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 3: TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
against defendants Phua and World Scientific (WS)

25. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all the preceding paragraphs, and additionally brings to the attention of the Honorable Judge the unwillingness of defendants Phua and WS to halt the advertisement, promotion and sale of the plagiarizing works as per Exhibit F.

26. In fact, defendants Phua and WS has continued to advertise, promote and sell plagiarizing work as in Exhibit F following the reception of the respectful request as per Exhibit H, and has additionally continued the advertisement, promotion and sale of plagiarized works as in Exhibit F following the filing of the first Complaint as well as of the second, both filings being fully known to Mr. K. K. Phua, WS president, because of copies of said complaints being mailed to defendant WS at its business address, the local sheriff attempting to serve the Summons twice at the same business address and according to eyewitnesses the plaintiff contemplates to call for testimonial in the event the preceding substantial evidence is deemed insufficient.

27. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm and continued to suffer irreparable harm as a consequence of the plagiarizing works published by defendant WS that continues to be sold, promoted and advertised in Florida as well as all over the world in bookstores,. electronic and direct advertising and direct sales.

28. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday issues a Temporary Injunction against defendants K. K. Phua and World Scientific mandating the termination of any and all publications of works by defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani as well as mandating the termination of any and all sales, advertisement and promotion of their works for at least the duration of this lawsuit.

COUNT 4: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
against defendant Cornell University (CU)

29. Defendant CU conducts under partial financial support by the U. S. National Science Foundation an electronic publishing business known under the name of "arXiv" whose first pages are reproduced in Exhibit I. Plaintiff states that defendant CU has published in the section "hep-th" of said archives a number of works, partially appended in Exhibit G, authored by defendants F. Cardone, R. Mignani and A. Marrani which works constitute plagiarism, paternity fraud and violation of copyrights owned by the plaintiff.

30. The jurisdiction for defendant CU is also established beyond credible doubt by the fact that defendant CU obtains financial incomes in terms of support from federal agencies and private foundations via the advertisement, promotion and use of their archives, specifically, in the State of Florida, as well as in the rest of the world. Additionally, defendant CU conducts routine business in the State of Florida by soliciting and recruiting students, participating in meetings and conferences, and selling and distributing intellectual matters.

31. The works in Exhibit G published by defendant CU plagiarize the plaintiff's "isotopies of special relativity, of the Minkowski space and of the Lorentz symmetry" beginning from their title and then continuing in the copy ad litteram of all symbols, of all equations and of all texts used in their derivation, as any ethical sound expert will testify by comparing published works in Exhibit G with the copyrighted works in Exhibit D.

32. Additionally, the plagiarism, paternity fraud and violation of the plaintiff's copyrighted works was brought by defendant CU to unprecedented extremes of scientific corruption under public financial support because said plagiarizing works in Exhibit G do not quote any reference whatever by the plaintiff, thus perpetrating a number of violations of our laws, particularly when operating under public financial support.

33. Immediately following the knowledge of this paternity fraud by defendant CU, the plaintiff contacted the anonymous editor of said archive and requested the uploading of his own papers in the same archive (that is called "hep-th"), and secured support from distinguished scientists for such an upload, but defendant CU arrogantly ignored such an appeal.

34. The plaintiff then filed the first Complaint without CU as defendant and contacted David J. Skorton, president of CU, with the letter dated February 22, 2007, and appended in Exhibit J in which, as the Honorable Judge can see, the plaintiff requested most respectfully corrective measures beginning with at least the capability by the plaintiff to upload his own works in the same archive hep-th in which defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani had been generously permitted to upload their plagiarizing works, so that readers could identify by comparison the approper paternity of the theories, but defendant CU additionally ignored in an additionally arrogant fashion, the plaintiff respectful appeal of Exhibit J, thus mandating the filing of the Amended Complaint with CU as defendant.

35. Following said second filing, the plaintiff made one final call of defendant CU to scientific ethics, democracy and accountability via the respectful and generous proposal for an out of court settlement dated July 31, 2007, appended in Exhibit L. In this proposal, the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday can see, the plaintiff proposed: A) No financial compensation whatever for the damages, losses and injuries suffered by plaintiff; B) The mere capability by the plaintiff of uploading "preprints" in hep-th archives as generously permitted by defendant CU to thousands of physicists dramatically less qualified than the plaintiff; and C) the removal by said archives of the papers by defendants Cardone., Mignani and Marrani not only because manifestly plagiarizing, but above all because known to be catastrophically inconsistent as shown below (Exhibit B). For the third and final time, defendant CU arrogantly ignored this call to scientific ethic s., decency, democracy and accountability, thus showing a premeditated intent to violate the laws of our Land for sinister personal gains due to an excessively protracted excessive impunity that has caused international indignations thus severely damaging the image of our Country throughout the world, impunity that must now be truncated via whatever means permitted by law as a necessary condition to show real care for the Constitution of the United States of America and its People.

36. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment of \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Cornell University to plaintiff Santilli as financial compensation for copyright infringements, and/or plagiarism and/or paternity fraud, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 5: CONVERSION
against defendant Cornell University (CU)

37. This is an action against defendant CU for conversion. Beginning from the year 2004, defendant CU converted for its own financial and other benefits the copyrighted work by the plaintiff, therefore depriving the plaintiff of his own property.

38. The plaintiff has conducted due diligence in searching legal files on Conversion and admits to have solely identified cases of Conversion pertaining to physical objects. hence, plaintiff admits to have failed to locate cases of Conversion perpetrated via electronic means. Neverthless, plaintiff alleges that the case herein referred to, that of "electronic conversion", here defined as conversion of of intellectual property via electronic means, is as damaging as those of physical conversions, thus being equivalent to the latter under the law. Hence, the plaintiff prays the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday to keep the plaintiff claim of conversion for proper legal proceedings and clarification in the only applicable forum, that of the U. S. Federal District Court.

39. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment of \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Cornell University to plaintiff Santilli as financial compensation for conversion, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 6: DISCRIMINATION UNDER PUBLIC SUPPORT
against defendant Cornell University (CU)

40. The plaintiff has been a victim of s severe discrimination by defendant CU, which discrimination constitutes a violation of the laws prohibiting discrimination when operating under public financial support.

41. In fact, the plaintiff qualifications is substantially superior to those of the plagiarizing physicists, as any honest expert eyewitness can testify by inspecting the plaintiff curriculum in Exhibit A. Additionally, the plaintiff is a U.S. senior scientist, while the plagiarizing physicists are younger foreigners. Finally, the Honorable Judge should be aware that the papers rejected by defendant CU deal with studies initiated by the plaintiffs at Harvard University under five research contracts with the U. S. Department of Energy, Hence, the plaintiff has suffered discrimination by defendant CU since the latter allowed the publication in the section hep-th of their archives of works by defendant Cardone, Mignani and Marrani, but defendant CU rejected the publication in the same archives of works by the plaintiff, said rejection having occurred while defendant CU was operating the archives under direct or indirect partial or full public financial support.

42. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment for \$15,000,000.000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Cornell University to plaintiffs Santilli for discrimination under public support, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 7: MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS
against defendant Cornell University (CU)

43. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all preceding statements. Additionally, the plaintiff claims that defendant CU has violated State and federal laws and regulations in the use of public funds because said use has not been in conformity with the conditions under which said funds were granted.

44. As one can see in Exhibit I, said public funds were granted under the condition of defendant CU verifying the highest possible academic standards, which standards require, first and above all, the strict implementation and verification of the highest possible levels of scientific ethics and accountability, at the basis of which is the avoidance of publications infringing copyrights. On the contrary, defendant CU has perpetrated a number of violations of said requirements, such as:

45. A. Defendant CU has allowed the publication in their electronic business of manifestly plagiarizing works to the extreme of avoiding any quotation whatever of the plaintiff's works and restricting the admission of references essentially to those by the author, which occurrence constitutes a gross violation of the most elementary rules of high scientific standards, to which defendant CU ios bound by using public funds.

46. B. Defendant CU has published in their electronic business works by defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani that are catastrophically inconsistent in the sense of violating most of the basic laws in physics, as treated in details in Count 10 below, catastrophic inconsistencies that are expected to be known by experts to qualify as such, thus perpetrating a second gross violation of the most elementary rules of high academic standards, and

47. C. Defendant CU has refused to implement any corrective measures when informed in writing of gross misconducts A and B above, this confirming the perpetration of gross misconduct perhaps originating from an excessive and excessively protracted impunity due to complete lack of federal or state, governmental or judicial control. of their operations to date, despite a world wide chorus of protests.

48. The plaintiff has received severe damages and injuries from the above misuse of public funds by defendant CU, both in reputation as well as financial incomes, and similar dam,ages have been suffered by numerous scientists the world over.

49. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment for \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Cornell University to plaintiff Santilli as compensation for misuse of public funds, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 8: TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
against defendant Cornell University (CU)

50. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all the preceding allegations, and additionally brings to the attention of this Honorable Court, the unwillingness of defendant CU to remove from their archives the fraudulent works by defendant cardone, Mignani and Marrani as listed in Exhibit G.

51. In fact, defendant CU has continued to advertise and promote plagiarizing work as in Exhibit G following the reception of the respectful request as per Exhibit I, and has additionally continued the advertisement and promotion of plagiarized works as in Exhibit G following the filing of the first Complaint as well as of the Amended Complaint.

52. Plaintiff has suffered irreparable harm and is suffering irreparable harm as a consequence of the plagiarizing works published by defendant CU that continues to defraud the plaintiff of his copyrighted scientific paternity.

53. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday issues a Temporary Injunction against defendant Cornell University mandating the removal from their archives of all works authored by defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani, and mandating the halting of the listing of any and all additional works by said defendants for at least the duration of this lawsuit. Unless this Temporary Injunction is issued and implemented, the plaintiff will continue to suffer unjust professional and financial damages and his activity will be greatly curtailed, including the inability to apply for research support.

COUNT 9: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Against defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani

54. The plaintiff realliges and reaffirms all the preceding paragraphs that are herein incorporated in their totality to prevent repetition.

55. Defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani are physicists residing in Italy. The jurisdiction of this Court is established for said defendants by the fact that they have conducted business in the State of Florida and secured financial and other remunerations from the sale, advertising and promotion of their work, specifically, in the State of Florida.

56. The following facts are established beyond a possible or otherwise credible doubt:

56-I) Defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani fully admitted the plaintiff paternity of the "isotopies of special relativity, of the Minkowski space and of the Lorentz symmetry" in various works up to 1992, as documented in their works reproduced in Exhibit E. For instance, in Exhibit E1 one can read the admission of paternity by said defendants beginning with the Abstract that reads "Santilli Lie-isotopic lifting of special relativity." and then continuing with all proper quotation of the plaintiff copyrighted work as in Exhibits C, D.

56-II) Beginning with the end of 1992, defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani elected to defraud the plaintiff of his paternity of said theories and initiated the publication of a series of works under the fraudulent names of "deformed special relativity, Minkowski space and Lorentz symmetry."

56-III) As a result of this fraudulent conduct, the plaintiff was forced to file at the Rome Tribunal, in Italy, on September 10, 1995, a criminal complaint against defendants Cardone and Mignani reproduced in Exhibit K, copies of which were sent to all Italian institutions involved in the case, which Institutions were not listed as defendants at that time.

56-IV) despite all the above, defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani intensified, rather than decreased their plagiarism, paternity fraud and clear violation of the copyrights owned by the plaintiff via their works in Exhibit F and G as addressed in preceding claim,s, thus causing severe injury damage and harm to the plaintiff.

57. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgement for \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid individually by defendant F. Cardone, defendant R. Mignani and defendant A. Marrani to plaintiff Santilli as compensation for excessive and excessively protracted copyright violation, and/or plagiarism and/or paternity fraud, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 10: FRAUD
Against defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani

58. The plaintiff "isotopies of special relativity, the Minkowski space, and the Lorentz symmetry" constitute a single interconnected and mutually compatible body of methods in which the broadening of conventional theories is initiated at the level of the basic numbers and then continued all the way to relativity and related laws.

59. In their hopes of covering up the paternity fraud, defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani did copy the body of generalized physical laws, formulae and texts copyrighted by santilli, but excluded the last step, the generalization of the basic numbers. As a result of this presentation, the "deformations of special relativity, Minkowski space and Lorentz symmetry" verify the so-called Theorems of Catastrophic Inconsistency since, as demonstrated in Exhibit B on technical grounds for the benefit of expert testimonials :

59-i) While the conventional and the plaintiff isotopic relativity conserve the numerical value of the basic unit over time, i.e., one centimeter remains one centimeter, the plagiarizing 'deformed" theory does not, i.e. one centimeter at the initial time can become 350 centimeters at a later time depending on conditions, as a result of which said "deformed theory" is catastrophically inconsistent because never applicable to experiments.

59-ii) While the conventional special relativity and the plaintiff isotopic formulation have the same numerical predictions under the same conditions at different times, the plagiarizing "deformed" theory does not, i.e., the numerical predictions under the same conditions may be different at different times, thus having no physical value whatever;

59-iii) While special relativity and the plaintiff isotopic formulation preserve the observability of physical quantities over time, the plagiarizing "deformed" theories do not preserve the observable over time (technically, do not preserve the original Hermiticity of a physical quantity), thus having no physical value whatever.

60. Defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani perpetrated a fraud in publishing their "deformation" because said defendants participated in the formulation of said Theorems of Catastrophic Inconsistencies as documented in the Exhibit L.

At any rate, said Theorems of Catastrophic Inconsistencies are expected to be known by qualified scientists. Hence, the presumed lack of knowledge of said Theorems by defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani constitutes complete disqualification and a patent of scientific illiteracy.

61. The same conclusion must be reached by defendant Cornell University because, in order to operate properly under public support, defendant Cornell University was expected to know fully and extensively said Theorems of Catastrophic Inconsistencies and should have rejected the publication of the works by defendant cardone, Mignani and Marrani solely on grounds of such catastrophic inconsistencies, irrespective of their plagiarizing and fraudulent character. This reaffirms the misuse of public funds by defendant Cornell University since they operate their archives under public support on grounds of nepotism, expected gains and personal interests and not under the required high academic standard.

62. Defendant Cardone, Mignani and Marrani have caused severe damages and injuries to the plaintiff via their release of works they knew were catastrophically inconsistent, thus perpetrating a fraud. The plaintiff suffered the additional damage that qualified expert did indeed identify the catastrophic inconsistencies of the defendant "deformed" theories and expected the same inconsistencies to apply also to the plaintiff isotopies, which expectation is untrue.

63. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgment for \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid individually by defendant F. Cardone, defendant R. Mignani and defendant A. Marrani to plaintiff Santilli as compensation for fraud, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 11: TORTUOUS INTERFERENCE
Against defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani

64. Plaintiff realliges and reasserts all preceding paragraphs and claims that defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani have perpetrated a Tortuous Interference with the plaintiff's research activity. Said Tortuous Interference is established by the fact that the defendants have continued with impunity until now to submit plagiarized works to several international scientific journals without any quotation of the plaintiff paternity. This is the case, for instance, of the papers available in the electronic archives of defendant Cornell University and listed in Exhibit E. This misconduct is interfering with the plaintiff professional activities on numerous grounds, including preventing plaintiff to apply for research support, participating in conferences, publishing his own works and the like.

65. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgement for \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid individually by defendant F. Cardone, defendant R. Mignani and defendant A. Marrani to plaintiff Santilli as compensation for tortuous interference, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 12: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES
Against defendants Cardone and Mignani
66. Plaintiff realliges and reasserts all preceding paragraphs and claims that defendants Cardone and Mignani perpetrated a Breach of Fiduciary Duty. As established in Exhibit M, defendants Cardone and Mignani were appointed by the plaintiff as editors of the scientific publications "Hadronic Journal" and "Hadronic Journal Supplement" initiated by the plaintiff when he was a member of Harvard University under financial support of the U. S. Department of Energy. During the operation of said technical journals, the plaintiff passed to said defendants all his trade secrets and knowledge. In particular, the principle of Respondeat Superior implies that said defendant itself has perpetrated copyright infringement.

67. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgement for \$15,000,000.00 (fifteen million dollars) financial relief to be paid individually by defendants F. Cardone and defendant R. Mignani to plaintiff Santilli as compensation for breach of fiduciary duties, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

COUNT 13: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
against defendant Instituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare (INFN)

68. Defendant INFN is the largest state agency funding physics research in Italy. Said agency has been listed as defendant because all violations of plaintiff copyrights, paternity fraud and plagiarisms herein considered were perpetrated by defendants Cardone, Mignani and Marrani under partial or full financial support by defendant INFN, as clearly stated in the very headings of all works, such as the works in Exhibit G.

v 69. Respondeat superior is an important principle of law because it establishes the responsibility of the funding institution for the action(s) conducted under its funding. The jurisdiction and venue are also evident because defendant INFN conducts routine business, specifically, in the state of Florida, including the sale, promotions and advertisement of published work, exchange of students and faculty and participation to conferences and meetings, specifically, in the State of Florida. The jurisdiction additionally holds because the plaintiff, a local resident, has suffered severe harm and damage because of the action by defendant INFN.

70. In the hope of preventing the listing of this Italian institution as defendant, on August 23, 2007, the plaintiff contacted its president (see Exhibit N), and requested the signature of a simple and honest letter stating that said institution will not provide any additional financial support and/or academic backing to defendants Cardone., Mignani and Marrani unless they properly quote the plaintiff originating works, jointly with any pertinent additional quotation, but in chronological order, as requested by ethics and accountability under public funding and/or academic support. In the event of releasing such a simple letter, the plaintiff would have abstained from filing this Second Amended Complaint with said Italian institution as defendant, without any financial compensation whatever despite the severe damages, injuries and losses suffered by the plaintiff (see Exhibit N). The president of the Italian institution here referred to arrogantly refused to sign such a simple, honest and ethical letter, under such a generous waiving by the plaintiff of any financial compensation, thus confirming the complicity of said italian institution as well as of its officers in the violation of international laws, and leaving the plaintiff no other option then the listing again of said Italian institution as a defendant in this lawsuit.

71. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that the Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgement for \$30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare to plaintiff Santilli as compensation under the rule of respondeat superior, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

72. The plaintiff realliges the impossibility of attorneys assuming his representation for the reason identified in the Foreword and laments his limited knowledge of the law, which limited knowledge has prevented the plaintiff to identify additional claims valid in the United States of America against said defendant as well as against its responsible officers as individuals, including but not limiting to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges currently under study. The plaintiff reserves the right to file a Motion for additional charges whenever sufficient evidence and documentation are available.

73. Moreover, the plaintiff reserves the right of filing separate legal proceedings in Italy against said defendant as well as against its officers as individuals, also including but not limited to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges under the Italian laws. The latter additional legal action is necessary to prevent additional paternity frauds by Italian physicists of works by U. S. citizens due to the above documented complicity by the Italian institutions and their responsible officers in said paternity frauds and other violations of international laws.

COUNT 14: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
against defendant Consiglio Nazionale Ricerche (CNR)

74. Defendant CNR is one of the largest research institution in Italy. CNR is listed as defendant because the biggest violation of the plaintiff copyrights, paternity fraud and plagiarism has been perpetrated by the book reproduced in Exhibit F where defendant Cardone is listed as member of the CNR. In particular, the principle of Respondeat Superior implies that said defendant itself has perpetrated copyright infringement.

75. Respondeat superior is an important principle of law because it establishes the responsibility of the funding and or hosting institution for the action(s) conducted under its funding and/or heading. The jurisdiction and venue are also evident because defendant CNR conducts routine business, specifically, in the State of Florida, including the sale, promotions and advertisement of work, exchange of students and faculty and participation to meetings and conferences. The jurisdiction additionally holds because the plaintiff has suffered severe harm and damage because of the action by defendant CNR.

76. In the hope of preventing the listing of this Italian institution as defendant, on August 23, 2007, the plaintiff contacted the president of said institution (see Exhibit N), and requested the signature of a simple and honest letter stating that said institution will not provide any additional financial support and/or academic backing to defendants Cardone., Mignani and Marrani unless they properly quote the plaintiff originating works, jointly with any pertinent additional quotation, but in chronological order, as requested by ethics and accountability under public funding and/or academic support. In the event of releasing such a simple letter, the plaintiff would have abstained from filing this Second Amended Complaint with said Italian institution as defendant, without any financial compensation whatever despite the severe damages, injuries and losses suffered by the plaintiff (see Exhibit N). The president of the Italian institution here referred to arrogantly refused to sign such a simple, honest and ethical letter, under such a generous waiving by the plaintiff of any financial compensation, thus confirming the complicity of said italian institution as well as of its officers in the violation of international laws, and leaving the plaintiff no other option then the listing again of said Italian institution as a defendant in this lawsuit.

77. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgement for \$30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Consiglio nazionale Ricerche to plaintiff Santilli as compensation under the rule of respondeat superior, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

78. The plaintiff realliges the impossibility of attorneys assuming his representation for the reason identified in the Foreword and laments his limited knowledge of the law, which limited knowledge has prevented the plaintiff to identify additional claims valid in the United States of America against said defendant as well as against its responsible officers as individuals, including but not limiting to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges currently under study. The plaintiff reserves the right to file a Motion for additional charges whenever sufficient evidence and documentation are available.

79. Moreover, the plaintiff reserves the right of filing separate legal proceedings in Italy against said defendant as well as against its officers as individuals, also including but not limited to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges under the Italian laws. The latter additional legal action is necessary to prevent additional paternity frauds by Italian physicists of works by U. S. citizens due to the above documented complicity by the Italian institutions and their responsible officers in said paternity frauds and other violations of international laws.

COUNT 15: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
against defendant Universita' Roma 3 (UR3)

80. Defendant UR3 is one of the largest universities in Italy. UR3 has been listed as defendant because all violations of the plaintiff copyrights, paternity fraud and plagiarism have been perpetrated by defendants Mignani and Marrani in their capacity as employees of UR3, as one can verify in Exhibits F, G. In particular, the principle of Respondeat Superior implies that said defendant itself has perpetrated copyright infringement.

81. Respondeat superior is an important principle of law because it establishes the responsibility of the employer for the action(s) conducted under said employment. The jurisdiction and venue are also evident because defendant UR3 conducts routine business, specifically, in the State of Florida, including the sale, promotions and advertisement of works and faculty exchange of students and participation to meetings and conferences. The jurisdiction additionally holds because the plaintiff has suffered severe harm and damage because of the action by defendant UR3.

82. In the hope of preventing the listing of this Italian institution as defendant, on August 23, 2007, the plaintiff contacted the president of said institution(see Exhibit N), and requested the signature of a simple and honest letter stating that said institution will not provide any additional financial support and/or academic backing to defendants Cardone., Mignani and Marrani unless they properly quote the plaintiff originating works, jointly with any pertinent additional quotation, but in chronological order, as requested by ethics and accountability under public funding and/or academic support. In the event of releasing such a simple letter, the plaintiff would have abstained from filing this Second Amended Complaint with said Italian institution as defendant, without any financial compensation whatever despite the severe damages, injuries and losses suffered by the plaintiff (see Exhibit N). The president of the Italian institution here referred to arrogantly refused to sign such a simple, honest and ethical letter, under such a generous waiving by the plaintiff of any financial compensation, thus confirming the complicity of said italian institution as well as of its officers in the violation of international laws, and leaving the plaintiff no other option then the listing again of said Italian institution as a defendant in this lawsuit.

83. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgement for \$30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Universita' Roma Tre to plaintiff Santilli as compensation under the rule of respondeat superior, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

84. The plaintiff realliges the impossibility of attorneys assuming his representation for the reason identified in the Foreword and laments his limited knowledge of the law, which limited knowledge has prevented the plaintiff to identify additional claims valid in the United States of America against said defendant as well as against its responsible officers as individuals, including but not limiting to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges currently under study. The plaintiff reserves the right to file a Motion for additional charges whenever sufficient evidence and documentation are available.

85. Moreover, the plaintiff reserves the right of filing separate legal proceedings in Italy against said defendant as well as against its officers as individuals, also including but not limited to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges under the Italian laws. The latter additional legal action is necessary to prevent additional paternity frauds by Italian physicists of works by U. S. citizens due to the above documented complicity by the Italian institutions and their responsible officers in said paternity frauds and other violations of international laws.

COUNT 16: RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
against defendant Universita' dell'Aquila {UdA)

86. Defendant UdA is a largest universities in Italy. UdA has been listed as defendant because the violations of the plaintiff copyrights, paternity fraud and plagiarism have been perpetrated by defendants Cardone in his capacity as employee of UdA, as one can verify in Exhibits G..In particular, the principle of Respondeat Superior implies that said defendant itself has perpetrated copyright infringement.

87. Respondeat superior is an important principle of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures because it establishes the responsibility of the employer for the action(s) conducted under said employment. The jurisdiction and venue are also evident because defendant UdA conducts routine business, specifically, in the State of Florida, including the sale, promotions and advertisement of works exchange of students and faculty and partecipating to meetings and conferences. The jurisdiction additionally holds because the plaintiff has suffered severe harm and damage because of the action by defendant UdA.

88. In the hope of preventing the listing of this Italian institution as defendant, on August 23, 2007, the plaintiff contacted the president of said institution (see Exhibit N), and requested the signature of a simple and honest letter stating that said institution will not provide any additional financial support and/or academic backing to defendants Cardone., Mignani and Marrani unless they properly quote the plaintiff originating works, jointly with any pertinent additional quotation, but in chronological order, as requested by ethics and accountability under public funding and/or academic support. In the event of releasing such a simple letter, the plaintiff would have abstained from filing this Second Amended Complaint with said Italian institution as defendant, without any financial compensation whatever despite the severe damages, injuries and losses suffered by the plaintiff (see Exhibit N). The president of the Italian institution here referred to arrogantly refused to sign such a simple, honest and ethical letter, under such a generous waiving by the plaintiff of any financial compensation, thus confirming the complicity of said italian institution as well as of its officers in the violation of international laws, and leaving the plaintiff no other option then the listing again of said Italian institution as a defendant in this lawsuit.

89. WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Judge Steven D. Merryday enters a judgement for \$30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollars) financial relief to be paid by defendant Universita' dell'Aquila to plaintiff Santilli as compensation under the rule of respondeat superior, or whatever financial relief the Honorable Judge deems appropriate.

90. The plaintiff realliges the impossibility of attorneys assuming his representation for the reason identified in the Foreword and laments his limited knowledge of the law, which limited knowledge has prevented the plaintiff to identify additional claims valid in the United States of America against said defendant as well as against its responsible officers as individuals, including but not limiting to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges currently under study. The plaintiff reserves the right to file a Motion for additional charges whenever sufficient evidence and documentation are available.

91. Moreover, the plaintiff reserves the right of filing separate legal proceedings in Italy against said defendant as well as against its officers as individuals, also including but not limited to: fraud; tort; complicity in paternity fraud; conversion; misappropriation of public funds; misuse of public funds; and any other possible and applicable charges under the Italian laws. The latter additional legal action is necessary to prevent additional paternity frauds by Italian physicists of works by U. S. citizens due to the above documented complicity by the Italian institutions and their responsible officers in said paternity frauds and other violations of international laws.

In faith


Ruggero Maria Santilli
U. S. Citizen acting pro se 35246 US 19 North, PMB 215 Palm Harbor, FL 34684, U.S.A. Tel. +1-727-688 3992 fax +1-727-934 9275 email ibr@gte.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
As documenetd in Exhibit O, K. K. Phua, president and registered agent of World Scientific, has evaded the service by the Sheriff of Hankensack., New Jersey, of the Summon of the Amended Complaint at his place of business. Consequently, the plaintiff is serving the Summon of this Second Amended Complaint to

State of New Jersey, Business Service Bureau, Division of Revenues, 225 West State Street, Third Floor, Trenton, NJ 08608,

with copies mailed prepaid first class as well as prepaid registered mail to

K. K. Phua, personal residence at, 508 Manning Ct, River Edge, NJ 07661

K. K. Phua president World Scientific Publications 27 Warrent Street Hackensack, NJ 076101

Additionally, the plaintoiff has mailed postage prepaid complete copies of this Second Amended Compl;aint to

Bryant BoydStun Representing Cornell University Fisher \& Sauls, P. A. 100 2-nd Ave S. Suite 701 St. Petersburg, FL 33731

C. Phillip Campbell, jr representing INFN and UdA Shumaker. Loop \& Kendrick Bank of America Plaza. suite 2800 101 East kennedy Blvd Tampa, FL 33602

Finally, the plaintiff has mailed postage prepaid five complete copies of this Second Amended Complaint to his legal frepresentative in Italy,

Avvocato Andrea Pontecorvo Viale Carso 77 00195 Roma, Italy

for his serving ac cording to international laws to the remaining Italian defendants withouty a legal representation on records

Fabio Cardone Dipartimento di Fisica Universita' dell'Aquila, I - 67100 L'Aquila, Italy

Roberto Mignani Universita' degli Studi Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Fisica, Via della Vasca Navale, 84, I-00146 Rome, Italy,

Alessio Marrani Univertsita' Roma Tre dipartimento di fisica Via della Vasca Navale, 84, I-00146 Rome, Italy,

Fabio Pistella President, Consiglio Nazionale Ricerche, Piazzale Aldo Moro, 7, I-00185, Roma, Italy,

Guido Fabiani Rettore, Universita' di Roma Tre, Via Ostiense, 161, I-00154 Rome, Italy,


 

Email: ibr@gte.net
First updated February 20, 2007