EXHIBIT 17

22. As in the St. Rita case, Damon & Morey did not submit fee applications in a timely way.

EXHIBIT 18

Upon information and belief, withholding fee applications over unreasonable, extended periods of time is one of the techniques Damon & Morey uses to avoid scrutiny and obfuscate objections as to the reasonableness of their fees all in furtherance of a premeditated scheme to defraud clients.

23. The Bankruptcy Code required that Damon & Morey, as part the Plan of Reorganization, provide an estimate of the reasonable compensation for professional services through the close of the case. In the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization dated November 3, 1995 submitted to and approved by all creditors and the Court on June 3, 1996, Mr. Savino estimated that Damon & Morey’s fees would total $226,000 through the close of the case.

EXHIBIT 19

24. Damon & Morey submitted the First Interim Fee Application on September 1, 1994; the Second Interim Fee Application on August 24, 1995 (358 days after the First Fee Application); the Third Interim Fee Application on September 4, 1998 (1,213 days after the Second Interim Fee Application); the Fourth Interim Fee Application on August 10, 1999 (222 days after the Third Interim Fee application); the Fifth Interim Fee Application on August 17, 2000 (372 days after the Fourth Interim Fee Application). The total amount paid to Damon & Morey for their First through Fifth Fee Applications is $401,172.63; an amount $175,172
more than they had represented to the Court and the Debtor (Elia) in the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization.

25. Sometime during the Second Quarter of 2002, Elia requested that Damon & Morey close the case. Mr. Savino refused, stating that additional fees were owed approximating $500,000. Elia requested that Damon & Morey provide an accounting to substantiate their fees and disbursements. On August 6, 2002 Damon & Morey transmitted an e-mail with an attached Client Ledger claiming that Elia owed $504,124.74 in additional fees and disbursements for the period August 1, 2000 to August 1, 2002.

EXHIBIT 20

This amount was in addition to the $401,172.63 that Damon & Morey had already been paid.

26. Mr. Brian D. Gwitt, Esq. reiterated Damon & Morey’s position in his August 6, 2002 letter, again stating that Damon & Morey was owed $504,124.74 in fees and disbursements from August 1, 2000 through August 1, 2002 in addition to amounts already paid.

EXHIBIT 21

Mr. Gwitt had previously represented Elia extensively in the same bankruptcy case before leaving Damon & Morey and joining ICE Miller. Upon information and belief, Mr. Gwitt’s comportment serves as a stark example of the same sort of unethical conduct learned while an associate at Damon & Morey.

27. The Client Ledger, in conjunction with Mr. Gwitt’s August 6th letter, claimed that the total amount of Damon & Morey’s fees and disbursements as of the first week in August, 2002 was $905,297.37, without even having yet closed the case; an amount already $679,297.37 over the estimate they provided to the Court, the Creditors and to Elia in the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization.

EXHIBIT 19

Upon information and belief, Damon & Morey crafted the fraudulent Client Ledger and caused the publication of Mr. Gwitt’s August 6, 2002 supporting letter for the sole purpose of deceiving its client (Elia) by claiming amounts not lawfully owed.

28. Damon & Morey submitted its Sixth and Final Fee Application in the amount of $358,756.62 on or about August, 2004 (more than four (4) years after the Fifth Interim Fee Application). Upon information and belief, as they had done previously in the St. Rita’s case, Damon & Morey intentionally withheld its fee applications to avoid scrutiny and deny the Debtor (Elia) remedies that might jeopardize potential income from this “surplus” case.

29. Despite Mr. Savino’s representations that he and Damon & Morey possessed: (a) extensive experience, expertise and an intimate knowledge of Elia’s business activities; (b) extensive experience in bankruptcy matters; (c) knowledge and experience in representing general contractors and (d) had a special relationship with Elia;

EXHIBIT 17

Damon & Morey’s fees for its professional services through the close of the case exceeded their estimate as shown in the Fourth Amended Plan by $535,172.63; an estimate that Damon & Morey and the Bankruptcy Court knew Elia had relied on in developing the approved Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization and in negotiating its settlement with USF&G.

EXHIBIT 22

EXHIBIT 23

But for Mr. Savino’s professional representations as set forth therein, Elia might not have approved the Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization as drafted by Damon & Morey or might have negotiated with USF&G a larger settlement for the surplus necessary to resume business.

30. Upon information and belief, Damon & Morey falsely disparages and discredits its clients when a disagreement arises over its fraudulent billing practice or lack of billing judgment in order to get court approval of fee applications. To support what was characterized as unnecessary and duplicative billings in the St. Rita’s Associates case, for example, Damon & Morey alleged that a female associate attorney assigned to the case was the recipient of inappropriate behavior or comments that made her “feel uncomfortable”. Rather than informing the client (St. Rita’s) of the alleged unwelcome comments, or assigning another attorney to the case, Damon & Morey (Mr. Savino) caused a partner to accompany the female associate attorney and billed St. Rita’s for both attorneys. As further evidence of this tactic to discredit his client before the Court, Mr. Savino (Chairman of the Business Litigation and Insolvency Group) maligned his client, his client’s efforts and his relationship with his client in St. Rita’s case using words and phrases like: “stinko”, “miserable, miserable engagement”, the “worst”, “haven’t had a guy this bad since… “ (emphasis added).

EXHIBIT 24

31. Relying upon its apparently superior credibility with the local bankruptcy judges and, consistent with the tactics used in the St. Rita’s case, Damon & Morey (Mr. Savino) made similar false derogatory allegations of a personal and business nature in the Elia case as well; allegations known to be false and meant solely to undermine the character and integrity of the Elia principals in the eyes of the Court. Some examples of Mr. Savino’s false allegations and testimony include: “As this Court can observe from the docket herein, the Elias objected to essentially every proof of claim filed in this case” ; and that the Elias possess a “back-charging contractor’s mentality” (emphasis added)

EXHIBIT 25

Upon information and belief, this is a premeditated Damon & Morey (Mr. Savino) business practice used by their Business Litigation and Insolvency Group to prejudice the judiciary in its devious plot to justify its inflated fee applications.

32. The U.S. Trustee reviewed Damon & Morey’s First and Second Interim Fee Applications in Elia’s case and found that, in part, “the applicant’s billing practices and failure to exercise billing judgment creates excessive overall fees that cannot be determined reasonable or necessary based on the value of services provided” and that “time records contain excessive and duplicative entries”.

EXHIBIT 26

33. Although the Debtor (Elia) was never forewarned by the U.S. Trustee, the Court or its attorney (Damon & Morey), the U.S. Trustee unilaterally discontinued its review of Damon & Morey’s fee applications after the Second Interim Fee application. Upon information and belief, Damon & Morey knew that, at least in the Western District of New York, after all creditors were paid in full, its fee applications would no longer be scrutinized by the U.S. Trustee, the regular and expected safeguard that the Debtor (Elia) had relied upon to insure reasonable attorney’s fees.

34. As Damon & Morey was well aware, Elia relied on its estimate of the cost for their professional services when it negotiated the USF&G settlement.

EXHIBIT 22

EXHIBIT 23

Damon & Morey did not advise that its fees for professional services would exceed its estimate as set forth in the approved Fourth Amended Plan of Reorganization by over 300%.

35. In addition to excessively inflating its fees, upon information and belief, Damon & Morey routinely withholds its billings for an unreasonably long period of time in order to further its scheme to protect its own continued employment and to enrich its partners by depriving its clients of any real opportunity to object to legal fees. Damon & Morey was the only party possessing financial information crucial to the Plans of Reorganization concerning its accrual of legal charges in both the Elia and St. Rita’s cases. In St. Rita’s Plan of Reorganization, Mr. Savino represented that Damon & Morey’s professional services would be $60,000. He then billed $96,032.50, an increase of over 60% without ever informing the client that his fee estimate was being exceeded. A similar scenario took place in the Elia case as described above. Upon information and belief, this is another tactic Damon & Morey habitually uses to unjustly enrich its partners during the time that its Debtor clients (St. Rita’s, Elia and unknown others) are most vulnerable.

36. In the St. Rita’s case, Mr. Savino (Chairman of the Business Litigation and Insolvency Group) testified that Damon & Morey’s billing records do not necessarily reflect the actual cost of services being lawfully charged to the client. For instance in his August 29, 1997 testimony, Mr. Savino stated that he instructed an accounting employee to “identify enough of the time that was on the borderline to get this fee application under one-hundred thousand dollars”. (emphasis added)

EXHIBIT 28

Upon information and belief, Damon & Morey’s accounting records reflect what Mr. Savino believes can be forced upon his client and sold to the Bankruptcy Court. Upon information and belief, this is but another tactic that Damon & Morey uses to unjustly enrich its partners at the expense of its bankruptcy clients.

37. In violation of applicable ethical and legal requirements and knowing that it enjoys superior credibility with the judiciary, Damon & Morey provided false and misleading testimony solely to disparage and discredit its client (Elia) for the purpose of prejudicing the Court. One example is Mr. Savino’s Response to Elia’s Objections to Fees, wherein he testifies that “the Elias have objected to essentially every proof of claim filed in this case” (emphasis added).

EXHIBIT 25

In fact, Mr. Savino knew at the time of this testimony that Elia had paid over 97% of the claimants 100% of the amounts that they had claimed. Upon information and belief, Mr. Savino’s actual purpose was to mislead and prejudice the Court through factual misrepresentations designed to inflame and poison the Court against his client for his own financial gain. Mr. Savino used the same character assassination tactics against his client in the St. Rita’s Associates Private Placement L.P. fee dispute case.

38. Damon & Morey has also misled the Court concerning Elia’s intent to resume operations in an effort to conceal its own malfeasance and the resulting damage it has caused by keeping Elia in bankruptcy until all of its undue fees are paid. Upon information and belief, there are numerous instances of Mr. Savino’s dishonesty and deceit concerning his knowledge of Elia’s intent to resume operations. Some examples of this include: (a) Mr. Brian D. Gwitt, Esq.’s letter dated August 6, 2002 written on behalf of Damon & Morey where on page 12 Mr. Gwitt states that “Elia never intended to go back into business”;(b) Mr. Savino’s August 10, 1999 letter to Judge Elfvin wherein Mr. Savino states that “It is and always has been D.A. Elia’s intention to return to operations once its bankruptcy case was closed”; (c) page 3, paragraph 10 of Debtor’s Objection dated October 22, 1999 wherein Mr. Savino states “This purpose is of special importance in Chapter 11 Reorganization cases (as in the case sub judice) where a debtor intends to go back into business and must reorganize its estate completely”; (d) page 3, paragraph 13 of Debtor’s Objection wherein Mr. Savino states in part “…, with the remainder to go to the Debtor to recommence business operations; (e) page 10, paragraph 38 of Debtor’s Objection wherein Mr. Savino further states “Additionally (as the Court is aware), the Debtor intends to go back into business at the close of the bankruptcy proceedings, and the new claim unduly hinders the Debtor’s ability to do so”;(f) Elia’s e-mail dated February 13, 2000 to Damon & Morey expressing its intent to resume operations and; (g) page 11 of Damon & Morey’s Responses to Elia’s Objection to Damon & Morey’s Sixth and Final Fee Application, footnote # 2 wherein Mr. Savino states “Falsehoods in the Objection include David Elia’s allegation that he continues to be delayed from reentering construction, when Damon & Morey has been informed he is working to pass the Patent Attorney bar exam.” Although Mr. Savino knows that the Debtor (Elia) has been ordered by the Bankruptcy Court not to resume operations until all creditors (including disputed ones such as Damon & Morey) are paid in full and has delayed the closing of the bankruptcy case for years pending payment of undue fees, Mr. Savino seeks to wrongfully prejudice the Courts by his misrepresentations about Elia’s intentions. In fact, when Elia submitted a final report to close the case in 2004, Damon & Morey submitted papers in opposition.

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 29

Upon information and belief, Damon & Morey employs unethical and illegal business practices to enrich its partners. These practices include, but are not limited to: (a) withholding fee applications to avoid scrutiny; (b) publishing false business documents including client ledgers and billing statements for the sole purpose of deceiving the Courts, its clients and others; (c) knowingly providing false testimony to the Courts, its clients and others; (d) failing to promptly disclose to the Courts, its clients and others actual conflicts-of- interest when discovered; (e) knowingly concealing from the Courts, its client and others actual conflicts of interest; (f) hiring and paying outside counsel to represent creditor clients against debtor clients in the same bankruptcy case; (g) opening files in the name of adverse creditor principals and affiliates in order to conceal actual conflicts-of-interest with debtor clients and; (h) willfully disregarding its client’s interests by failing to provide reasonable notice that the estimate for the cost of their professional services was being exceeded when they knew that their client had relied on their representations in formulating the Plans of Reorganization and accepting settlements.

Upon information and belief, the business practices described above represent what appears to be a pattern of behavior in concert with others, thereby constituting racketeering, intended to unlawfully and unethically enrich Damon & Morey at the expense of its clients.

Upon information and belief, there is no reasonable explanation except deception, corruption or incompetence for the judiciary’s and the bar’s failure to act despite the incontrovertible evidence of Damon & Morey’s malfeasance.