Showing posts with label Iviewit Stolen Patent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iviewit Stolen Patent. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

FBI Coverups, Boca Police Scandals, Major Law Firms Covering Corruption, Enron Collapsing, Attempted Murder, Invention Stolen, Denial of Due Process.

In America only Certain People have rights to Protection from the Law - Most All are just Collateral Damage to Protect Corrupt Attorneys, Judges, DOJ Officials, Corrupt FBI agents, Billionaire Tech Companies, Major Media Companies and Mega Law Firms.

Judical Coverups, Attorneys and Judges Protecting Each Other, Illegal Behavior among judges, attorneys and clerks .. well this is American Justice.. not based in TRUTH or Law but Based in who you know and what your willing to pay them to cover your Dirty Deeds...

"" KernelOfTruth says:

There is a case in which any one of you might be interested. It involves the theft of patents worth at least one trillion dollars, and has already paid out billions in royalties that have never been received by the inventor or the company (with no report of where that much looted money has disappeared).

The reason you may be interested is that it is a Florida case with ties to places in New York, and the inventor seems to have run into problems similar to those discussed by individuals who have posted on the subject of public corruption in the Scott Rothstein case.

The shenanigans are unbelievable, including, but certainly not limited to, a Keystone Cop like investigation by the Boca Raton Police Department and an ostensible Office of the FBI [in West Palm Beach]. How much do you think it cost the taxpayers to set up that [rented FBI] Office, which acted as though an investigation was being run when nothing was done to examine the complicity of lawyers, public officials, and investigating agencies and a car bombing.

If you are interested, you can go to http://www.iviewit.tv and listen to certain testimony relating to the crimes that were allowed to occur through the Courts, both a Civil Division State Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

If you prefer, you can read certain documents at
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2004%2020%20Iviewit%20Request%20for%20FBI%20IA%20and%20OIG%20investigation%20of%20FBI%20case%20downlow.pdf

The inventor and main person being abused, Eliot L. Bernstein, discusses the matter in the State Hearings held in New York, involving public corruption. One case brought up concerns a Monty Friedkin case, which he says is cloaked as lawyers and law firms acting as a criminal enterprise stealing inventions from inventors.

He identifies William J. Dick of the Foley and Lardner law firm and Brian Utley as working with Christopher Clarke Wheeler to steal inventions from Monte Friedkin, of Diamond Turf Equipment, a Florida corporation.

The criminal enterprise against Mr. Friedkin was explained as Utley (operating as the President of the company) contracting former IBM patent attorney William Dick to write Friedkin’s patents in his name and place them into a company incorporated by Christopher C.Wheeler of Proskauer Rose.

According to [page 15 of] the Complaint found at that web site, a lawyer that had subsequently been convicted in Florida of Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury is identified as the instigator or ringleader. Then, this ringleader, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, is identified as a lawyer with the law firm of Proskauer Rose.

This scam is identified by Eliot Bernstein (in testimony and also by Stephen Lamont in the Complaint) as being perpetrated in a same fashion [as that run against Diamond Turf] when involving his Iviewit Company, wherein certain individuals performed in the enterprise, to walk the patents and intellectual properties [Utley] worked on, out of the business and into a company that these co-adventurers owned, in which the true owner [in this case, one can replace Friedkin with Bernstein] had no interest or idea of it’s existence.

Scroll down to pages 16 - 18 of the 43 page Complaint, and you can read about how both intrinsic and extrinsic fraud were further perpetrated before a Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, in the State of Florida, with what would appear a Circuit Court Judge’s willingness to grant an allowance for continual acts of perjury, intentional fraud, and criminal acts of conversion.

For instance, the Judge [Jorge Labarga] is said to have stated that the prior counsel that the parties did not know or hire had been representing them so that the right to file almost anything in the case had been waived by the counsel that had no authority to file the case or act in the case.

Further on, at page 21 [after explaining the reasons for starting File number 402-2-59-1799-339, on May 13th, 2002, with the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, at the behest of the Long Beach, California FBI], is the explanation “Bernstein, upon discovering further that the companies were involved in a federal bankruptcy in Florida (Case No. 01-33407-BKC-SHF Inv Chap 11 in the Southern District of Florida) and the law suit in civil court in Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit discussed above, both previously unbeknownst to exist by shareholders or management of the legitimate companies, built his case from California and then moved to Florida to the lions den or Labarga’s court and the Bankruptcy Court, believing that justice would be had.

Both actions filed in Florida were instigated by Proskauer Rose and Proskauer Rose referred management Utley, Michael Reale and an entity RYJO, Inc. (“RYJO”).

RYJO a subcontractor under a strategic alliance structured by Proskauer Rose, between Iviewit and Real 3D, Inc. (“R3D”) a client of theirs, R3D owned 70% by Lockheed Martin, 20% by Silicon Graphics Inc., and 10% by Intel, later wholly acquired by Intel and a third party necessary with management to file an involuntary.

With new counsel relieving dirty counsel, those acting without authority, now replaced by counsel retained by the legitimate companies, Bernstein went back to Florida to pursue his rights. It is presumed that once Proskauer Rose to instantly get rid of the evidence of the fraudulent companies but first had a plan to get the stolen intellectual properties out.


Thus, when combined, the billing case that they thought nobody would ever discover was in court and bankruptcy, the companies could do the following:

(i) Proskauer Rose would sue fraudulent companies ABC which harbored the stolen patents with a large unpaid bill

(ii) this would make them the largest creditor and thus entitled in a bankruptcy to majority of the company and the stolen patents and

(iii) with Utley, RYJO and Reale instigating the bankruptcy they would be the remaining benefactors, it would all look clean to the Courts, almost invisible and they would walk off with the stolen assets. They never figured that Bernstein would be tipped off to this in the midst of the process”.

It was related that one of the counsel [Kenneth Rubenstein] “was so brazen that the Court was in his pocket, that he wrote [Judge] Jorge Labarga a sworn statement claiming he never heard of Eliot Bernstein, the Iviewit companies and was being harassed”.

Also related to the case was a declaration of a showing to Warner Brothers of entries with investor H. Wayne Huizenga, in regards to the Iviewit inventions and multiple billings.

The kicker in the last paragraph [on page 18] is the obvious dereliction of duty in regards to what passes for FBI Agents in the network [of the ol’ south Good Ole Boys] and compromised Office of the US Attorney with the Southern District of Florida, when it is written “one asks, why later those same crimes exposed in mass against the government to the West Palm Beach Office of the FBI, were not prosecuted when taken by the FBI to the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with all the other crimes they were apprised of and given evidence in support of and which they then led Iviewit to believe they were investigating until April 17, 2007”.

Page 20 holds a critical piece of information, which is “Another part of the immediate problem was that evidence surfaced of a deal between the fraudulent Iviewit companies and Enron’s Broadband Division, in the now infamous Enron/Blockbuster Deal which due to Enron’s booking of hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of earning it, on a new technology for broadband internet distribution of movies, based on technologies almost stolen from Iviewit which are the true cause of the collapse of Enron.

All evidence of this had to be destroyed by the law firms who had perpetrated the crimes and this may have been the cause of the massive shredding party”.

For a story about the “Specific Involvement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- West Palm Beach Office: January 2003 to March 2007”, scroll down to page 23.

The tale involves accusations regarding lawyers submitting false statements and falsified documents (including to a Court of Law), money made or laundered under the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements, conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety that involved Public Office corruption cases before the Florida Supreme Court, denial of due process and procedure in the Civil Courts as the criminal lawyers legal and political power have been able to position [without disclosure] through conflict to avoid prosecution by infiltrating Public Offices where Complaints have been filed, the infiltration of the attorney discipline process [both in New York and Florida],

..the possibility that the [Democrat-controlled] Proskauer Rose law firm is controlling certain of the Florida Courts and Disciplinary Departments when the New York law firm has one small Office in Boca Raton, cases at the Boca Raton Police Department that were derailed [with the Officer disappearing without Notice],

...the possibility that the [Republican-controlled] Foley and Lardner Law Firm is controlling a certain tier of the Florida Courts and the Governor’s Office when the Wisconsin law firm had virtually no presence in Florida, a subterfuge of a deferral of a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Complaint that falls under another conflict due to the fact that Governor Charlie Crist had appointed [Iviewit’s former patent counsel] Foley and Lardner, special Office positions favorably given to lawyers like George Lemieux [a managing shareholder where the ringleader (Christopher Wheeler) worked in the Fort Lauderdale Office of the Gunster, Yoakley, & Stewart law firm].

The behavior of the President of The Florida Bar [Kelly Overstreet Johnson] who worked for the brother [James Wheeler] of the ringleader lawyer, the infiltration of federal investigations, an FBI Agent [Stephen Lucchesi] who acted as though the problem was one that was civil in nature without need for FBI involvement, Special Agent Joseph Sconzo’s denial that there was any file concerning Iviewit in the FBI’s [rented] West Palm Beach Office.

Special Agent in Charge John McVie’s denial of any history of Iviewit or Eliot Bernstein with any FBI investigation after years of investigation, a non-existent Securities and Exchange Commission investigation jointly run with the Boca Raton Police Department, denial of any oversight responsibilities pertaining to action taken by the FBI by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice [Glenn Fine],

.... the dismissal of a need for an audit when the Small Business Administration is the largest investor and shareholder through SBIC loans, the lack of oversight by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the lack of investigation by the Department of Justice into the Iraqi-style car bombing of the family vehicle belonging to Mr. Bernstein his wife and three children, possible terminations of US Attorneys for political reasons and retirements of Special Agents for political reasons,

... an admittance of no power or authority held by either the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee, harm to international relations through violations of international treatises, the failure of former Commissioner of Patents [John Doll] and his successor Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property [Jon W. Dudas] to follow the law, and possible influence wielded by Michael Grebe [the former Chairman of the Foley and Lardner law firm and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee who is currently under investigation for other violations]

The gist of the Complaint can be boiled down to the request contained on page 22, which is “With the revenues from the technologies converted to their pools and already generating profits in billions of dollars since invention, it would take either a continuous corruption of any legal or prosecutorial agency the complaints went or easier that with a Presidential top down denial of due process and procedure, through various Presidential appointments in key positions to block it top down.

We are asking the DOJ OIG to investigate for any possible connection to election fraud or payola to politicians capable of planting individuals to block Iviewit at each of these agencies”.

Moreover, on page 7 of a succeeding formal request to the Office of Internal Affairs for the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the inventor and President & Founder of Iviewit Technologies, Inc./Iviewit [Iviewit Holdings, Inc.], Eliot Bernstein, further concluded his ordeal and exasperation and concern for others, in his summation: “Please contact me immediately regarding these matters, as I fear for not only the life of my family but those who had volunteered to act as witnesses and others, that presumed they were doing so with the FBI investigating the matters.

I am in grave concern that the FBI has taken no actions to protect a citizen whose life has been threatened repeatedly, whose car has been blown up and confirmed as committed with intent by fire investigators.

A group of citizens who have followed all the rules of making complaints to all the proper authorities, to find that no one is protecting their rights to life, as well as, the rights guaranteed through the Constitution under Article I, Sec 8, Clause 8 pertaining to protection of inventors with the full weight of the Constitution, in the event of just such attempts to steal such inventions and murder inventors.

In fact, in a RICO case the FBI typically offers protection to witnesses against corruption from small or large mobsters when witnesses’ lives may be in danger.

Where a group of citizens have brought allegations of corruption that may yield a Patentgate, with attempted murders already occurring in the US and threats already effectuated against ones life, it is stunning that FBI officers who have been fully apprised of the matters and tendered evidence and witnesses against the accused, have not granted an iota of protection to those who are in danger, all indicating a top down control of the government and its regulatory agencies.

Control by those at the top to aid and abet those alleged to have committed such atrocities, through violation of public offices of these federal and state investigatory agencies. Most disturbing though is that it now appears that no one is protecting the United States and foreign nations from a group of criminals cloaked as lawyers, politicians and judicial members!”. ""

Posted Here
By Investigative Blogger

Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

What Really Collapsed Enron? Well it was a Proskauer Rose Law Firm Scandal, a Foiled Patent Theft. Proskauer Rose Law Attorney Corruption has ruined countless lives, portfolios and has left an amazing path of Destruction.


Can Enron Victims Sue Proskauer Rose Law Firm for their Loss, Suffering and Hardship.. well if they had the TRUTH .. maybe? But wait.. Proskauer Rose controls US Courts, Judges, Attorney Ethics Committees .. so Nevermind...

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Iviewit Stolen Patent Case - On What or Whose Authority is P. Stephen Lamont Acting On?

Why is Stephen Lamont Threatening to End the Affairs of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox? Why is Stephen Lamont Demanding that I Copy him on my emails to anyone regarding the Iviewit Company?

Why in the World would Stephen Lamont Threat my Life, and my "Affairs", just because I posted a document and words THAT were NOT mine... ???

Does Stephen Lamont have the Legal Authority
to Speak on behalf of the Iviewit Company?

Can P. Stephen Lamont Legally File Federal Documents to QUASH Eliot Bernstein's Motion .. when Mr. Lamont was Fired, Long .. Long ago ?

Iviewit, Eliot Bernstein Says:

" Lamont was not approved by any board, as the board disbanded illegally and without noticing the shareholders and so I hired lamont and offered him stock in the company. Later we learned from Garber and other law firms that we could not act on behalf of Iviewit in official capacity until the books and corporate records were fixed, approximately 50k and that is why lamont claims he was advised by counsel to work outside the company and not as an officer, as he legally was never an officer."

More on Iviewit.. and Lamont
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/02/p-stephen-lamont-friend-or-foe-of.html


Posted by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Industry Whistleblower

This is not My Story .. it is However, the Greatest Patent Story every Told, and well I find it intriguing So I post about it.. I Found the Information on www.Iviewit.TV where the story has been running for 8 Years.

I link to that site in Which Stephen Lamont also promotes.

SO why threaten me for posting information from that site and directly from the REAL owner .. and one of the Inventors of the Iviewit Patent.. Why Terrorize me for simply reading a Website and posting pieces of it on my site and linking to the site...??

Why has, P. Stephen Lamont, an Alleged Former CEO of Iviewit Technologies Inc. Threatened me for posting information that is not mine.

And it is Reported to ME that Stephen Lamont has Joined and or Created a Hate Group, and is actively recruiting others to join him in this group that is threatening to Incarcerate me, Burn Me at the Stake, Ruin Me, and Telling Lie upon Lie about me.. and my Business.. all because I Posted Excerpts from the Iviewit Website.

I just don't Understand. I have no Bad intentions.
I am simply writing about an 8 Year Old Stolen Patent Story
that is and has been already on the Web for 8 years....

Not my Story...
I am Just a Modern Day
Investigate Journalist.. which means
I Read..
I Post...
that Simple..

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.iViewit.TV

Crystal Cox Blog

Friday, February 5, 2010

P. Stephen Lamont - Friend or Foe of the Iviewit Shareholders?

Is P. Stephen Lamont working for or Against the Iviewit Shareholders and the best interest of the Iviewit Inventors?

******

Below is an excerpt from an SEC letter to be filed shortly regarding information regarding the fraudulent actions of P. Stephen Lamont in his continued representation of Iviewit, as CEO no less, at an address where no Iviewit company has ever been incorporated or listed with any agency.

P. Stephen Lamont was fired long ago and has no right to act in any capacity for Iviewit or Iviewit Shareholders.

P. Stephen Lamont also has been reported to the courts for his criminal activities in representing shareholders in my Federal RICO and Antitrust case when he is not a licensed attorney and never has passed the bar.

You will find other information below regarding the illegal activities of P. Stephen Lamont and he has been reported to State and Federal agencies regarding these crimes.

I advise anyone considering dealing with P. Stephen Lamont in any capacity to check with your legal counsel about the possible ramifications you may incur regarding any issues with Iviewit and Lamont. These latest assaults on my character etc. appear to be feeble attempts by a desperate man whose cover and misdeeds have been exposed.

P. Stephen Lamont also references filings with the US Second Circuit whereby his separate appeal has been dismissed but fails to mention that in my appeal he also was identified for illegally representing Iviewit Shareholders when he is not an attorney.

• FEBRUARY 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - SIGNED WARNER BROS. LICENSE AND SERVICE AGREEMENT @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf

• August 15, 2001 Irell & Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Paul%20Allen/old%20patent/LEGAL/Irell%20&%20Manella/Bills/2001%2008%2029%20-%20Irell%20Bill.pdf

It is imperative for the SEC to note that after the Signed Licensing and Service Agreement, Iviewit opened a California Office inside a Warner Bros. building, in order to take over encoding operations for their online content, and more. Iviewit began billing according to the Licensing and Service agreement. Please note the language in the Licensing and Service agreement pertaining to the Proprietary nature and Confidentiality of the Iviewit inventions.

Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees. Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office[1].

At this point, allegedly, a coordinated conspiratorial effort between Smith, Rubenstein and others began to derail the already signed Iviewit agreements with Warner Bros. et al.

o Whereby former Acting CEO of Iviewit P. Stephen Lamont, ( a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis ) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement. Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the agreement is attempted to be wholly denied.

The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, perhaps because they were denying its existence.

o The emails forward from this point in the timeline begin to attempt to hide from the fact that Licensing and Service Agreements were already in place while also hiding these facts and liabilities from Shareholders and Auditors. The alleged fraud may again have catastrophic effect on these highly traded stocks, reaching back to this point in time and possibly further back.

April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. "Bill" Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL.

AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010404%20Colter%20to%20Raduchel%20Leonsis%20referral%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

• May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Chey formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony ( also under Signed Agreements ) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor.

Since that time, Warner Bros. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010525%20Sony%20Doug%20Chey%20Endorsement%20of%20Tech%20and%20Advisory%20Board%20Option%20letter.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100120%20Douglas%20Chey%20Sony%20Bio.pdf

The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION
of Sony’s involvement in these matters.


Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros. et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors. I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony.

The SEC can take this Formal Complaint additionally
as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY.

• December 20, 2001 ~ P. Stephen Lamont's letter to Kenneth Rubenstein regarding Smith and Rubenstein and the refusal of Rubenstein to RE-OPINE to Smith due to what he claims is a “CONFLICT”, which led further to the breakdown of relations between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. Lamont later affirmed to Shareholders in a written communication that Microsoft had planted him in the Iviewit companies.

Later P. Stephen Lamont changed that story to AOL and Leonsis’ niece had planted him in Iviewit through AOL Founder Leonsis’ best friend Chuck Brunelas (“Brunelas”). Brunelas recruited under contract Lamont to the Iviewit companies on behalf of Leonsis. Lamont’s revelations of being planted at the company which came after he was hired led to the termination of Lamont at that time[2].

December 20, 2001 P. Stephen Lamont Letters to Kenneth Rubenstein ~

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020611%20System%20and%20Method%20for%20Fraud%20on%20USPTO.pdf

Pages 455-462

o November 09, 2001 ~ Brunelas Employment Agreement

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20011109%20Chuck%20Brunelas%20Agreement%20re%20Warner%20Bros%20AOLTW.pdf

o Based on new information since that time, it is alleged that Rubenstein, Lamont, Leonsis and Smith operated together to sabotage Iviewit/Warner Bros. et al. relations and others, purposefully to breach the prior signed licensing agreements and avoid paying the royalties owed to the Iviewit companies, using the old “good guy / bad guy” routine.

The SEC should note here that Hall and I recently reported Lamont to Federal and State authorities for alleged collusion in the RICO activities claimed in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, including ongoing criminal activities[3].

Further, Lamont continues to represent himself and Iviewit Shareholders as the Iviewit CEO, when he is fully aware of his termination from employment and that he has no authorization from the Board of Directors, Management or Shareholders to represent their security interests in Iviewit companies, this securities fraud also should be subject for investigation by the SEC.

P. Stephen Lamont claims to be CEO of Iviewit Technologies, Inc. in multiple correspondences and Federal court papers with an address at 175 King Street. Armonk, N.Y. 10504 and whereby no Iviewit offices were ever opened or authorized at this address. The office is directly across the street from Defendant in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit IBM’s world headquarters.

o Additional Evidence for the SEC regarding P. Stephen Lamont is contained in a June 18, 2009 Letter to New York Attorney General Chief of Staff, Steven M. Cohen regarding fraudulent activities of Lamont @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090618%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20Re%20Lamont%20Signed.pdf

o The SEC should note here that Lamont’s initial resume submitted by Iviewit contracted employment recruiter, Brunelas, is materially different and contradicts what Lamont himself recently claims regarding his past on the Iviewit Homepage, in multiple court filings and other letters to Iviewit shareholders.

• Original 2001 Resume Submitted to Iviewit on P. Stephen Lamont by Brunelas @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Lamont%20Resume%20Given%20to%20Iviewit%20by%20Chuck%20Brunelas%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

• 2001 Resume Claims the following:

Columbia University School of Law ~ J. D. in Commercial and Regulatory Law - May 1992

Columbia University Graduate School of Business ~ M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting - May 1981

State University of New York at Cortland ~ B.A. in Economics - June 1978

• 2009 Iviewit Homepage Statement written by P. Stephen Lamont claims:

“By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former Acting CEO of Iviewit (counsel advised all Iviewit executives to resign their posts and work along side Iviewit rather than within Iviewit, as the former Board of Directors, Counsel and Accountants, disbanded without requisite notice to Shareholders in violation of law, thereby leaving massive liability and exposure) and a significant shareholder in Iviewit.

With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering” Source www.iviewit.tv homepage.

• Whereby Lamont’s legal and other degrees claimed are wholly different and therefore false in one or both of his background accounts as they are materially different, again causation for further investigation of Lamont by the SEC and other investigators this letter has been copied or addressed to.

• Further, you will note that Lamont refers to himself as “former Acting CEO of Iviewit” and claims counsel advised him to resign any official role due to the potential for charges of fraud, and I advised Lamont to follow counsels’ advice and personally, I did not accept any official roles on counsels’ advice.

Yet, even in recent court documents and other illegally signed documents executed by Lamont to major Blue Chip companies, including Microsoft, Lamont now represents himself as CEO of Iviewit inapposite of counsels’ advice, at an address that is not registered to any company Lamont claims to be employed as CEO by.

August 05, 2009 Lamont Letter to Microsoft http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20090805%20Lamont%20Illegal%20Letter%20to%20Microsoft.pdf

• Lamont further now claims such executive role in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, claiming he is CEO of Iviewit, when no Board has ever put him in that position and when he is fully cognizant that he has no authority legally to represent Iviewit Shareholders. Lamont even attempts to represent Iviewit Shareholders and Companies currently in Federal Court, while not having ever passed the bar to practice law and therefore precluded from representing others in court. Again, cause for further investigation of Lamont.

• February 09, 2009 Lamont Court Filing

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20Lamont%20Attempt%20to%20Quash%20Bernstein%20Motion.pdf

The SEC should note here that while the document claims service on February 09, 2008, it appears executed February 09, 2009.

Whereby the SEC should also note that Lamont does not represent himself individually in the Lawsuit but acts on behalf of Iviewit Shareholders of which he has no authorization from Shareholders to act on their behalf and also is not a lawyer, making it ILLEGAL for him to act on others behalf in a legal capacity.

The District Court and Second Circuit Court notified of this ILLEGAL representation and asked by me to force amendment of the complaint, instead continue to allow the ILLEGAL representation of Lamont to continue. This ILLEGAL representation of Shareholders is also a serious criminal act.

• Finally, at the company Digital Factory that Lamont lists as one of his former employers, in his resume previously exhibited herein, one of the company employees later disclosed that Lamont had been in stock trouble for securities fraud with the board of that company, of course Lamont’s resume failed to disclose this material fact.

• December 31, 2001 – Letter from Brunelas to Greg B. Thagard (“Thagard”) ~ Vice President Advanced Technology Technical Operations at Warner Bros. The letter is regarding Thagard’s acceptance of an Iviewit Advisory Board Position. Later both Thagard and Colter would receive Iviewit Stock options for their Board roles with approval of Warner Bros. and Sony executives.

o http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20011231%20Brunelas%20to%20Thagard%20Regarding%20Joining%20Iviewit%20Advisory%20Board.pdf

• January 07, 2002 ~ Letters by Lamont regarding his meeting with Rubenstein regarding Warner Bros et al. Rubenstein was presented the exhibited document in draft form at his deposition, where he read it and then dodged questions regarding why his name is referenced in relation to opinions he gave to Warner Bros. et al. after denying he knew anything about Iviewit or the patents.

The letter wholly contradicts his prior denial of knowing of the Iviewit inventions or Eliot Bernstein, contradicting his sworn deposition statements and sworn letters to Judge Jorge Labarga constituting multiple instances of perjury and more.

January 07, 2002 and more P. Lamont letters to Kenneth Rubenstein

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2006%2003%20Iviewit%20Rebuttal%20to%20Wheeler%202nd%20Response_Final.pdf

Pages 19-23

o November 20, 2002 Kenneth Rubenstein Deposition and Deposition Exhibits

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Depositions%20BOOKMARKED%20SEARCHABLE%20with%20hyperlink%20comments.pdf

Pages 1-100, the exhibits attached to the deposition show Kenneth Rubenstein’s denials.

• January 14, 2002 Warner Bros. employee Colter’s internal Warner Bros. document containing an ADMISSION OF USE OF IVIEWIT PROPRIETARY PROCESSES AND VIOLATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS by many Warner Bros. et al. employees. The letter also provides affirmation that Rubenstein ( MPEGLA LLC Patent Counsel, former Iviewit Proskauer Rose Patent Counsel and Warner Bros. counsel ) opined favorably to Warner Bros. The document again directly refutes Rubenstein’s statements in deposition and written communications to the Labarga court that he did not opine or even know of the Iviewit inventions.

o http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2002%2001%2015%20AOLTW%20RUBENSTEIN%20OPINION%20comments.pdf

• February 17, 2002 – Eliot Bernstein letter to Brunelas Regarding Smith’s sudden request to have Rubenstein of Proskauer speak to him to re-opine on his former statements, already exhibited herein, regarding the efficacy and novelty of the patents.

Kenneth Rubenstein was acting Patent Counsel to Iviewit as indicated in the exhibited Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer billed to author and distribute to Iviewit potential investors when he opined to Warner Bros.

The links below provide information on Kenneth Rubenstein’s position as an Iviewit Board member and Iviewit Patent Counsel despite his statements to the contrary.

At the time Smith requested to speak with Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein already were terminated by Iviewit and investigations were already underway regarding the patent thefts and more.

o February 17, 2002 Letter from Eliot Bernstein to Brunelas.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020117%20Bernstein%20letter%20to%20Brunelas%20Regarding%20Smith%20response%20to%20Colter%20to%20talk%20with%20Rubenstein%20Poskauer.pdf

o January 2001 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum, whereby the SEC should note here that Kenneth Rubenstein is listed both as Iviewit Patent Counsel and an Iviewit Advisory Board member.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Wachovia%20Private%20Placement%20Memorandum%20Bookmarked.pdf

Page 4 – “Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio - Mr. Rubenstein is the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool.

Page 16 - “Strong and Experienced Board of Directors and Advisory Board.” iviewit's Board of Directors and Advisors consist of several well-established individuals from the technology, entertainment, and financial community.

Directors have extensive backgrounds with top-tier firms such as Goldman Sachs, Kidder Peabody, and McKinsey & Co. Crossbow Ventures has provided $3.0 million in funding and sits on the Board.

Technology and entertainment guidance comes from a partner at Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway & Wertheimer and from Kenneth Rubenstein, the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool.

Additionally on Page 16 - “The Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio. The Company's strategy is to establish market precedence through licensing of trade secrets and know-how.

Page 38 – ADVISORY BOARD SECTION

Kenneth Rubenstein Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP. Mr. Rubenstein is a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and is the patent attorney for iviewit. He is a registered patent attorney before the US. Patent & Trademark Office.

Mr. Rubenstein counsels his clients with respect to the validity and infringement of competitors' patents, as well as prosecutes patent applications. For the past several years he has worked on the formation of a patent pool, for MPEG-2 technology, involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies.

He is also a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. Mr. Rubenstein received his law degree, cum laude, from New York Law School and his Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he also graduated with a B.S. Degree.

The SEC should note here that Rubenstein’s attempt to claim he never heard of Iviewit, including at his deposition, allegedly is due to the massive conflicts of interest that Rubenstein had.

If Kenneth Rubenstein were patent counsel to Iviewit and simultaneously counsel to Warner Bros. et al. when he originally opined to Colter, without conflict waivers or disclosure, this obviously would have violated attorney conduct codes and law.

Additionally, Kenneth Rubenstein is conflicted with the patent pooling scheme and artifice to fraud inventors he has created, MPEGLA LLC, where again he acted as counsel and founder of MPEGLA LLC while also patent counsel to Iviewit.

The conflict here is again obvious where the Iviewit technologies were the single greatest threat to his pools as Iviewit has the dominant technology, which without, the MPEG license would be worthless.

The SEC should note that Rubenstein initially misrepresented himself and Joao as Proskauer Partners to Iviewit, when prior to learning of my inventions they were both with Meltzer.

Kenneth Rubenstein is counsel and sole patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC now one of the largest infringers of the Iviewit technologies, licensing Warner Bros et al.

Proskauer, after learning of my technologies value, estimated at a trillion dollars to “priceless” by leading engineers at Real 3D, Inc. and without a patent department at the time in 1998, then rushed to acquire Rubenstein and his Meltzer patent group and the MPEGLA LLC pools.

When the acquisition was complete, Proskauer, my former patent counsel, directly began inuring benefits from the stolen technologies via their new client MPEGLA LLC in their new Intellectual Property department created after learning of my inventions.

MPEGLA has now tied and bundled my inventions to their pools licensing schemes, converting the royalties from the technologies from Iviewit and through other anticompetitive tactics have kept Iviewit from market in classic RICO and Antitrust violations, including violations of Sherman and Clayton, as further defined in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit exhibited already herein.

The SEC should note here that Warner Bros. et al. and many of those involved directly in these matters are also involved in DVD patent pooling schemes, including but not limited to, DVD6C Patent Pool[4].

Whereby, similar to MPEGLA LLC’s illegal use of my technologies, DVD6C has similarly tied and bundled my technologies to their pools licenses, excluding me from royalties and then inuring royalties from others from my technologies directly from their membership in the pool.

o The SEC should note that the only Meltzer Intellectual Property attorney not to transfer to Proskauer at the time of acquisition was a one Raymond Joao, who initially with Rubenstein was represented as a Proskauer partner and who took initial patent disclosures with Rubenstein.

In 1999-2000 it was learned that Raymond Joao was putting patents into his own name while sabotaging the Iviewit patents. Upon leaving Iviewit, Joao claimed publically that he had 90+ patents in his name and then went to work for Marc S. Dreier, recently prosecuted and convicted by the SEC for an alleged Ponzi scheme, as further evidenced later herein.

February 08, 2002 – Lamont letter to John D. Calkins (“Calkins”) ~ Senior Vice President New Media Business Development of Warner Bros., regarding stock issued to Warner Bros. employees Colter and Thagard for Advisory Board roles they accepted and also regarding their about face and breach of contracts.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020208%20Lamont%20to%20Calkins%20Warner%20Bros%20Re%20Colter%20and%20Thagard%20Advisory%20Board%20Stock.pdf

• February 20, 2002 – Calkins Letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.

The SEC should note that opposite of Warner Bros. claim in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record, it is instead Warner Bros. that attempts to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter.

o http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020220%20Calkins%20Letter%20to%20Lamont%20Warner%20Bros%20Wayne%20Smith.pdf

• February 27, 2002 – Lamont to Calkins about Warner Bros. Breach of Contracts, the SEC should note that while Lamont relies on the NDA, the February 15, 2001 SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, illustrated above, also has strong language about IP rights concerning the Iviewit technologies that also are violated.

Also, take note, that at this time in 2002, Warner Bros. et al. knew of the breaches and formally was notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches and therefore they should have begun accounting for the IP Liabilities at this time, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.

o http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020227%20Lamont%20to%20Calkins%20Warner%20Bros%20Breach%20more.pdf

• March 05, 2002 – Smith letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.

o http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020305%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Letter%20to%20Lamont%20Calkins.pdf

• November 20, 2002 - April 15, 2002 Letter by Lamont to Rubenstein Regarding Conversations with Warner Bros et al. presented to Rubenstein at his November 20, 2002 Deposition as already discussed herein.

o http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Kenneth%20Rubenstein%20Deposition%20with%20Exhibits%20CERT.pdf

pages 3-9

Please note that the correspondence exhibited above refers to a notification issued to Warner Bros. at that time, which provided Warner Bros. et al. further notice at that time that Cease and Desist letters and threatened litigation would be forthcoming regarding the technology infringements.

Warner Bros. et al. already was given notice of Breach of Contracts regarding the Intellectual Properties in prior communiqués exhibited and these letters certainly cite specific liabilities Warner was aware of going forward.

Liabilities exist for Warner Bros et al. for their involvement in the alleged criminal RICO activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros. et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of pouring in $25 Million Dollars in investment capital to my companies.

When doing their due diligence on a $12 Million Dollar Private Placement with Wachovia Securities, corporate and intellectual property frauds were uncovered, including discoveries by Smith regarding the filed patents and Calkins regarding corporate fraud.

At that time, Warner Bros et al. employees and personnel became aware of fraud relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional to what Andersen had found on or about that time and this information was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins.

Colter relayed that Warner Bros. et al. uncovered fraud, including fraudulent statements made by Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner, former Iviewit counsel, regarding statements made in the Wachovia Private Placement.

A Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer circulated to potential Iviewit investors including Warner Bros. et al. These Securities Frauds contained in the Private Placement are also cause for further SEC investigation.

Per Colter, Warner Bros. et al. and Smith uncovered Intellectual Property Frauds involving fraudulent oaths to the US Patent Office and Worldwide Patent Authorities, which has in part led to suspension of my Intellectual Properties by the US Patent Commissioner pending investigations by the US Patent Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This series of events led to further uncovering Patent Fraud by my former counsel Proskauer Rose, Foley and Larder and Meltzer and others that are subject to several state, federal and international ongoing investigations and legal actions.

Investigations now include one by Harry I. Moatz (“Moatz”), Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office – Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”), charged with oversight of the Federal Patent Bar and patent attorney criminal issues.

Moatz confirmed that W. Palm Beach FBI Special Agent, Stephen Lucchesi had joined his investigation of FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE.

Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office which resulted in the exhibited herein patent suspensions.

Moatz assembled a team of Patent Office Officials to aid me in getting the Intellectual Properties ready for suspension while investigations proceeded, as he removed all prior counsel from access to the IP.

Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by their counsel Proskauer Rose.

Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer Rose LLP or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement.

It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer Rose were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer Rose LLP and had Stolen Intellectual Properties in them, this was learned from information discovered directly from the US Patent Office OED Investigations.

Whereby, Arthur Andersen on or about this time, while auditing the Iviewit companies for the largest investor Crossbow Ventures of West Palm Beach Florida, whose investment funds were two-thirds SBA SBIC funds found identical and similarly named companies to the Iviewit companies.

The Fraud involving the stolen Small Business Administration Funds is under ongoing investigation with the SBA Inspector General’s office and others.

Per Colter, Smith discovered Fraud involving Kenneth Rubenstein, a Proskauer Rose law firm partner and sole patent evaluator for one of the largest infringers and criminal suspects in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit.

Kenneth Rubenstein is under investigation with other attorneys by Moatz and was also ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of five justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety for violating public offices to block complaints I filed against him.

Where later, after discovery of the Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, it was learned that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros. was working with Kenneth Rubenstein ( Iviewit Patent Counsel, MPEGLA Counsel and Warner Bros. Counsel ) and that their relationship somehow now precluded Kenneth Rubenstein from re-opining on his prior opinion of the patents for Warner Bros. employees as already evidenced herein.

Whereby Warner Bros. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of those binding signed agreements.

The MPEGLA LLC patent pooling scheme created and overseen by Counsel Rubenstein is merely an artifice to defraud inventors and has illegally precluded me from market in classic antitrust activities, including death threats and a car bomb.

Whereby the DVD Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in have also used the technologies in violation of signed contracts and agreements, admittedly, yet since that time they too have excluded Iviewit from market, again in classic antitrust activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 year Massive Liabilities.

The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between these prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al., communications and contracts and the current contact to notify them again of liabilities resulting from the IP infringement and the newer Lawsuit liabilities, that during the gap I was actively pursuing my rights.

I have given similar information to several investigators and courts over the several years in between communications regarding Warner Bros. et al. involvement in the Iviewit allegations in my Federal RICO Lawsuit.

During the time, I was also forced to flee my home several times for my family’s safety, including from death threats from Mr. Brian Utley on behalf of the law firms Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner and then from actual Attempted Murder of my family. Attempted Murder through a Car Bombing of my family minivan in Del Ray Beach, FL., images of the Car Bombing can be found on the www.iviewit.tv [5] homepage.

Eliot Bernstein... Information to be found at http://www.iviewit.tv/

More Details on the Iviewit Case at www.Iviewit.TV

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Time Warner - WBOL - Fraud Against Shareholders, Lies about Liability and NOT honoring Contracts, Why?

Why Did the SEC allow Warner Brothers to Split off Aol after they wre warned of a Trillion Dollar Liability that they would certainly be responsible for Some if not all the Damages?

So We have Bills that Show every Charge for the Entire Process of setting up and Supposedly Executing these Contracts such as the one Below.

2001 08 29 - Irell & Manella bill for AOL license agreement they drafted.

yet AOL was allowed to Split from WBOL, and Warner Bros. Is NOT being MADE to honor these Contracts, Why?

This is FRAUD against the Shareholders as AOL - Time Warner Inc. knew that this Major Liability was NOT accounted for on their Books. So why is Time Warner AOL still ignoring the Rights of the Iviewit Inventors, are they trying to hide assets... no matter how you look at it Time Warner - Time Warner, Warner Bros., WBOL,AOLTW, AOL, Time Warner Inc., Whatever name you have for them... they KNEW and did not share with shareholders a HUGE Debit on their Books.

There is Confidentiality Agreements, and So Much Evidence, All these Names and Players, Contracts, Bills and Still Warner Brothers acts like this Just Does NOT exist... hmmm...

There are BINDING term sheets from 2001 and Still WBOL ignores the rights of those they entered into contract with, WHY?

Warner Bros. Online Videos has NOT been honoring this Contract but using the Technology for around 8 Years now, and after Iviewit Sent them Disclosure of the Issue pending, they Split of AOL, and the SEC has no Issue with this?

Do Warner Brothers Shareholders have ANY issue with any of this ? I Guess they had better Start Considering it's Validity... any Time Now...

Click Here for Contracts and Information from 2001
that Seem to Have Slipped Warner Brothers Mind.


More Links to Research This Topic

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Book/index.htm

www.Iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

AOL, Time Warner Inc, Iviewit, SEC Fraud, Andrew Y. Choung, IRELL and Manella LLP,WBOL, Warner Bros. Online, Stock Tips

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Trillion Dollar Fraud on the US Court System - Who Can STOP this Kind of Interconnected Corruption at the Highest Levels?

Conflicts of Interest, Fraud Against the US Government, Stolen Technology, Stolen Patents, United States Courts, US Patent Office, NYAG, Proskauer Rose, Judge Shira Scheindlin, Christine C. Anderson Whistleblower, Anti-Trust Violations, Iviewit Stolen Patent, Fraud on the Court, Shareholder Liability, New York State Liability, Trillion Dollar Accounting Error, New York Senate Judiciary and More... Read This...
Eliot Bernstein Patent Heiste
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf
Iviewit Stolen Patent,

Time Warner Inc. - AOL - Withholding information from Shareholders that they have a Right to Know.

How Come AOL and Time Warner Inc. Shareholders still do not seem to know about the Trillion Dollar, at least in part - and a VERY big part is a Liability on the that is NOT reported on the AOL Time Warner Books?

Here we have Confidentiality Agreements Violated, Technology Stolen from Inventors, No Compensation to The Inventors. Time Warner Inc., AOL - they know that this Shareholder Fraud is Pending and that at some point they will have to pay for the Technology they STOLE.

Does the SEC not Care about a Liability this HUGE... look at www.DeniedPatent.com or www.Iviewit.TV and you can see thousands of Documents of Proof.

Did the SEC have any advance Notice all all of this?

Well from the Above sites you can see that the SEC did indeed know about what was going on and now the damage is mounting and still Time Warner Inc. - AOL - NYSE: TWX - Time Warner Cable Inc. -Warner Bros. they have Seemingly not disclosed this Liability to their Shareholders, in fact are they not in some sort of "Time Warner Declares Spin-Off Dividend Of AOL Shares Time Warner Inc. and AOL Inc. announced the timing and details regarding the spin-off of AOL from Time" From TimeWarner.com ? So another words they are restructuring their Company to attempt to protect themselves from this Trillion Dollar Liability without telling the Shareholders of TWX that it even exists.

Is That Legal?

"" Time Warner Inc. - AOL Separation Information On December 9, 2009, Time Warner Inc. completed the spin-off of AOL Inc. "" From the Link Below
http://ir.timewarner.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=70972&p=irol-irhome
Time Warner was Given Notice from Iviewit of this Trillion Dollar Liability and they Separated AOL after this - Folks, there is a Whole Lot More that Time Warner Inc. is NOT telling YOU.

There is No way that Time Warner Inc. Can Ever DENY that they knew the Liability from the Iviewit Stolen Patent, P. Stephen Lamont told them, Eliot Bernstein Told them, People within their own Company told them... there is Evidence on top of Evidence to PROOF that Warner Bros. Hid this Liability information from their Shareholders and denied Rights to the Iviewit Inventors. The Question is How Long with the shareholders stand for this and how long with the SEC Ignore this HUGE Liability that is NOT accounted For?

Links for You to Visit
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20SEC%20FAX%20Cover%20Page.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=205

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=209

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:FgCCwCxMZuwJ:iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%252008%252018%2520Cuomo%2520Letter%2520Final.doc+%22iviewit%22+%22Time+Warner%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:MviGXq-QONgJ:www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%252012%252015%2520Letter%2520to%2520Thomas%2520Cahill%2520Re%2520Krane%2520Conflict.pdf+site:www.iviewit.tv+Time+Warner&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/patent%20pool%20infringers.pdf?referer=www.clickfind.com.au

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Miscellaneous%20Patent%20Docs/2004%2003%2026%20Moatz%20letter%20to%20take%20time%20responding%20for%20complaint.pdf

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2011%2015%20SC%2004-1078%20IVIEWIT%20REBUTTAL%20TO%20FLORIDA%20BAR%20RESP(1).pdf


http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2004%2021%20Director%20Officer%20Advisory%20Board%20and%20Professionals%20Letter%20of%20Liabilities%20email%20low.pdf
Letters of Liabilty

to James B. Comey from Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit - Regarding: Lockheed Martin Use of Iviewit Intellectual Properties

James B. Comey Ignoring Phone Calls from Iviewit - Eliot Bernstein.

James B. Comey, Assitant Stephanie Doherty On April 03, 2009 - Informed Iviewit that James B. Comey of Lockheed Martin Corporation would NOT Take Eliot Bernstein's Calls on a Trillion Dollar Intellectual Properties Infringement Liability Relating to Iviewit Intellectual Property and a Lawsuit Naming Lockheed Martin Corporation as a named Defendant.

James B. Comey, Lockheeds General Counsel has Refused Phone Calls and has Not Responded to Written Requests from Eliot Bernstein on Behalf of himself, the other Iviewit Inventors and the Iviewit Technologies Shareholders.

As Pro Se Counsel, it is Shocking that James B. Comey can Legally, It Seems get away with simply ignoring Trillion Dollar Lawsuits. And refusing sound business practice to resolve the Lawsuit and Intellectual Property Infringements and to Comply with Proper Accountancy Rules and Regulations.

It Appears that Lockheed is another Player in this Trillion Dollar Heist that is, for Some Reason Protected by the US Courts, Why - We are unsure of.

So James B. Comey, General Council of Lockheed Martin Corporation was notified of Intellectual Property Infringement / Cease and Desist and Lawsuit in Writing after a Phone Conversation with James B. Comey's Assistant Stephanie Doherty and James B. Comey Can Simply Do Nothing?

Is this How the United States Justice System Works?

Here is the Document I am Discussing in This Post, Read it all and see that the Proof in the Iviewit Stolen Patent, Patent Infringement, Stolen Technology Case is Overwhelming, and these Corporations can Simply Ignore it.
James B. Comey, Lockheed Martin Corporation
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090416%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20Demand%20Letter%20to%20Lockheed%20Comey4841clow.pdf

James B. Comey, Lockheed Martin Corporation
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV
James B. Comey, Lockheed Martin Corporation

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

New York Second Circuit Courts are Blocking Due Process, Blocking the Truth. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Christine C. Anderson and Iviewit

Now in the Iviewit Case, we know that this Case is Legally Related to the Christine C. Anderson, New York Whistleblower Case Right?

We know from all the Information, Proof, and Documents on www.Iviewit.TV and on www.DeniedPatent.com that the Iviewit Inventors have had their Technology Stolen and that the Patent Attorney from Proskauer Rose that is involved in this Trillion Dollar patent Heist seems to be Protected by the New York Courts and the Florida Courts as Well as the New York and the Florida Attorney Bar.

It seems that time after time the Florida and the New York Court of Appeals simply denies due process or just dismisses complaints with no real reason why. And well they are the LAW and they can do that.

The question is How Long will YOU, Will "We the People" take this abuse of power... do you have no rights at all when a Court can just push paper at you year after year with this much proof and evidence.

The New York Second Circuit is Dishing up the kind of justice that will make sured Favored Law Firm Proskauer Rose is Protected as is the Reputation of the Not So Justice Judith Kaye Ex-Supreme Court Judge. Along with this Intel, Time Warner Inc., Sony, MPEG-4, MPEGLA, Bruce Sewell, Kenneth Rubenstein, and More are Protected by the Simple Stroke of a Pen by the New York Second Circuit.

The Christine C. Anderson Whistleblower Case in New York is one that you all need to pay attention to, for decades the TRUTH has been silenced and the courage of Christine C. Anderson needs to be rewarded, and SOMETHING needs to be done. Instead folks like Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe are continuing to deny rights in Related Cases to this huge Whistle Blowing Scandal Exposing the TRUE corruption in the New York Court System.

Whistleblowers like Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe don't seem to stop business as usual at the Second Circuit - Check out the Links below and see if you can make sense of the Continuing to Deny and Keep down the Due Process Rights of the Iviewit Company, the Real Inventors of a Trillion Dollar Technology that we all use every day and have for years upon years while the inventors are kept down, harasses, and have had attempted murder. Still the New York Second Circuit Court is Above Morals, Above the Law and It is Time for You the People To Speak Up and Hold them accountable for the Injustice they are dishing up.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20100109%20US%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Denial%20of%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20and%20Appeal.pdf

Motion is Denied - Not Based in Fact they Say
Talk about Delusional I Say. Can the Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe and her Clerk not read. This is Seriously Based in Fact, and why the big law firm Proskauer Rose is Being protected and all those covering up this Trillion Dollar Patent Theft are being Protected by the New York Courts.. well it is SHOCKING and time for YOU to start asking Questions.

In the New York - United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - Your RIGHTS are "Moot" - S.D.N.Y. - N.Y.C. 07-cv-11196 Scheindlin, J.

Next Document...
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf

Thousands of Documents of Proof Literally and the New York Second Circuit Court of Appeals simply, with a sway of the Pen Denies YOUR RIGHTS, your get no due process, you do not get to present you facts, they protect the Criminal and Simply say your Complaint is Not based in Fact and is MOOT... Litterally Thousands of Pages of Proof and NOT Based in Fact Says Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe -

why is New York Second Circuit So Corrupt and Allowed to Keep on Protecting the Criminals ... this Patent Theft is Fraud Against the United States Government, it involves Pay Offs, Attempted Murders, Cover Ups, Contracts not Honored, Perjury and More and the New York Second Circuit thinks it is "Moot" - something is Very Wrong in the New York Court System and the Law is Simply Irrelevant on every level.

New York Court Corruption, New York Whistle Blower, Second Circuit New York

Christine C. Anderson, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Twelve Trillion Dollar, Federal RICO Lawsuit - Iviewit Stolen Patent Case.

Using Bankruptcy Courts to Steal Inventions... Hmm..
Pretty Savvy Thieves the Law Firm of Proskauer Rose is.
Wonder How Much the Bankruptcy Dept. of Justice Trustee
Got to Overlook this One ?

$$$$$$

The Florida Justice System is About as Corrupt as It Gets and the US Department of Justice, the USPTO, the SEC, the FBI, The Florida State Bar, the Florida Supreme Court and all the Corruption out of the New York Supreme Court that is protecting Proskauer Rose in all this.. well it all adds up to THERE is no Justice, and it DOES not matter how much evidence you have, the Corruption is so Thick and there is so many attorneys and judges covering up for those breaking the law and violating your rights that you don't stand a chance.

the Following is From www.Iviewit.TV and well it is some pretty sick stuff, it leaves me hopeless as to the United States Justice System doing anything but making the Rich RICHER and covering for the Criminals...

"The Cover-Up Crimes

The Twelve Trillion Dollar, Federal RICO Lawsuit “Legally Related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin to the Whistleblower Anderson Lawsuit, exposes the original violations of federal, state, and international law committed to steal the technologies and additionally exposes a series of ongoing and continuous Cover-Up Crimes.

Cover-up Crimes designed to block due process through violations of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes, Public Office Rules and Regulations and Law, through Conflicts of Interest that act to Obstruct Justice, similar to that claimed by Anderson and committed by the many of the same Public Officials of the New York Supreme Court that Anderson fingers.

Wherever Iviewit and I filed complaints at the State Bars or disciplinary agencies under State Supreme Court aegis’ in New York, Florida and Virginia, each was later found to have MAJOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THROUGH VIOLATIONS OF JUDICIAL CANNONS, ATTORNEY CONDUCT CODES, PUBLIC OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND LAW, CREATING THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

Mind blowing conflicts, so outrageous as to find Steven C. Krane, former President of the New York Bar Association, Official at the First Department DDC and one, if not thee, leading ethics lawyer in New York and Nationally, found representing complaints against his Proskauer Partners and Himself in First Department complaints, while having an Official Role at the First Department DDC where the complaints were being investigated. How unethical but true and we will return to this matter further in a moment.

Fraudulent Patent applications and Patents fraudulently issued into the names of others are crimes directly against the United States and Foreign Agencies as there are sworn oaths on the US Patent Office applications by the inventors, so filing fraudulent patents in others names is a Fraud Directly Upon the United States Patent Office and Worldwide Patent Authorities.

Crimes committed by the attorneys directly against government agencies and in violation of Federal Patent Bar Rules, State Attorney Conduct Codes and Law.

The crimes also involve not only the creation of fraudulent shell patent filings but fraudulent shell companies for the fraudulent patents to walk out the back door in, all formed by Proskauer and others not properly authorized to create such similarly named entities by the Board of Directors, Investors or management.

All these corporate crimes were violations of hosts of state and federal securities regulations and state incorporation laws, more crimes of fraud against government agencies, again committed in violation of Attorney Conduct Codes and Law.

Further, the scheme involved a false and fraudulent Billing fraud using a Florida Civil Court ( ruled by recently elected Florida Supreme Court Judge Jorge Labarga and a Defendant in the Iviewit Lawsuit ), which was filed by Proskauer Rose to the tune of $500,000 plus in Wrongful Fraudulent bills, bills designed to create false debt to the fraudulent companies they created, which contained the fraudulent patent filings.

Using this complex legal scheme which is a Fraud on a Federal Bankruptcy Court, the fraudulent companies were then to be bankrupted, after being sued for the fraudulent bills whereby the law firm and lawyers would become the largest creditors in the bankruptcy and seize the fraudulent patents hidden inside the fraudulent companies.

A plan that went extremely wrong when Arthur Andersen and others discovered that there were possible crimes being committed and fraudulent companies created and that this false information was being distributed to investors including, Wayne Huizenga, Ellen DeGeneres, Alanis Morissette, Crossbow Ventures and the Small Business Administration.

The SBA through Crossbow’s SBA loans which were two thirds of the money Crossbow invested makes the US Government one of the most aggrieved investors in Iviewit.

The Proskauer Fraudulent Billing Scheme popped up on the horizon at or around the same time the Iviewit companies were in process to close the $25 Million Private Placement financing deal with Wachovia Securities.

No one other than the conspirators of the RICO crimes knew about these illegal legal actions.

The Involuntary Bankruptcy was another legal scheme involving this time, Fraud on a Federal Bankruptcy Court, orchestrated by Proskauer Rose referred management Brian Utley and Michael Reale both formerly with IBM and Real 3D Inc. ( Intel, SGI and Lockheed ) on a fraudulent company with fraudulent inventions inside it.

On or about this time, Intel, a minority 20% owner of Real 3D, suddenly bought Real 3D from Lockheed the 70% owner and SGI, a 10% owner, in a publicly undisclosed transaction, taking with it the Iviewit inventions which now are alleged to be on almost EVERY chip manufactured since 1998.

Through the bankruptcy the underlying IP for the inventions would have become owned by the largest creditors to the fraudulent companies, Proskauer Rose and Real 3D.

Again, neither of these illegal legal actions constituting frauds on the courts, the Fraud on the Florida State Court in The Proskauer Fraudulent Billing Lawsuit or the Fraud on the Federal Bankruptcy Court via the illegal Involuntary Bankruptcy were disclosed to Wachovia, Investors, Auditors, Investment Bankers, Shareholders or Management by Proskauer or Foley.

At first, upon learning of the billing lawsuit and Involuntary Bankruptcy, it was unclear why these ILLEGAL legal actions existed and what the motive was, still much of the conspiracy remains unknown but at that time very little was known.

Only later, while investigating the falsified patent applications with the US Patent Office was it discovered that there were fraudulent patents inside the fraudulent similarly named companies involved in the IB, a company that Proskauer created, then sued and then with their referred co-conspirators filed the Involuntary Bankruptcy against.

Companies created without authorization of Shareholders, the Board of Directors or the Investors, and, where the real owners of the fraudulent companies are still unknown and subject of ongoing investigations and calls for Acts of Congress from the US Patent Office to get information regarding the inventions that were involved in the illegal legal schemes and frauds on the courts.

Upon learning of the corporate crimes from Arthur Andersen and much of the information regarding the fraudulent legal schemes by AOLTW / Warner Bros. who were doing due diligence for the Wachovia PPM when they discovered the undisclosed actions, including information that patents filed at the USPTO were not those being given to prospective investors and more.

Immediately, Iviewit retained counsel to investigate if the Billing Lawsuit, the Involuntary Bankruptcy and the thefts of the IP were realities.

Counsel retained by Iviewit found that indeed there were these illegal legal actions and frauds and that the Board of Directors, Management, Investors, Investment Bankers had no knowledge and in fact were distributing the Wachovia PPM which neither mentions the Lawsuit, the Utley IP and other fraudulent IP or the Involuntary Bankruptcy.

Iviewit threw out counsel that was representing the matters without authorization or retainers from the Iviewit companies and that time it was still unknown these companies were fraudulent, as they were similarly and identically named to the legitimate companies and Iviewit counsel began representing the matters instantly.

The Involuntary Bankruptcy found that Brian Utley, Reale and Real 3d all had no employment contract or ANY binding agreement with the Iviewit company they filed against and that matter instantly went away, as soon as, it was discovered.

On the Fraudulent Billing Lawsuit, well Proskauer Rose was not so lucky, counsel retained filed a Counter Complaint exposing the basics of the fraud known at the time, I submit this Counter Complaint to this Committee for review, as it too is subject to ongoing federal investigations11.

Again, in this fraud, Proskauer Rose was found suing companies they had no retainers with and the bills were not even in the companies sued names but the judge, Jorge Labarga, refused to even acknowledge the Counter Complaint, filed by Competent Counsel, alleging that the lawyers in the Fraudulent Billing Lawsuit perhaps were involved in crimes against the United States and Foreign Nations.

Jorge Labarga refusing the Counter Complaint and then illegally throwing the Lawsuit out but ruling a default judgment against Iviewit for the entire amount of the fraudulent bill, for failure to retain replacement counsel. It should be noted that Labarga on the eve of trial, cancelled the trial with no notice to Iviewit who showed up with two law firms representing their interests.

At the rescheduling hearing, Jorge Labarga dismissed both of Iviewit’s counsel and forced Iviewit to get new counsel for this most complex case in just a few days.

In fact, I submit to this Committee evidence that Jorge Labarga was aware of Kenneth Rubenstein, Christopher C. Wheeler, William Dick and Brian Utley’s perjurious statements made to his court, under deposition and in response to Bar Complaints, whereby perjured statements were proven prior to his throwing the case.

In one instance, Iviewit Patent Counsel Kenneth Rubenstein makes representation that he is being harassed to come to deposition in the matter as he knows nothing about Iviewit or the Iviewit inventions and inventors and refused to be deposed.

Jorge Labarga had no legal basis to block the deposition so he ordered Rubenstein to deposition, where it became apparent that Kenneth Rubenstein had LIED and PERJURED HIMSELF to the Court and knew far more about Iviewit than his sworn statements12.

Despite this damning and irrefutable evidence of Perjury to his court, Jorge Labarga ruled against Iviewit and buried the case for an undisclosed amount.

Again, information relevant to the case fraud has been submitted to Federal and State authorities.

Who owns all these fraudulent companies remains under investigation and all relevant information pertaining to these crimes have also been submitted to Federal and State Authorities and evidence, witness statements, copies of the fraudulent IP and much more are available in the Evidence Section of the Iviewit Homepage with over 1000 exhibits and hereby incorporated by reference in entirety herein for this Committee.

Crimes that if prosecuted would have taken down these powerful law firms overnight and put many of the perpetrators behind bars for more years than Madoff, as these crimes involved crimes directly against Federal, State and International Government Agencies, not merely Iviewit.

As soon as order is restored to the courts handling these matters in conflict and the corruption plaguing the New York Court system as further supported by Anderson regarding these matters is exterminated, these criminals cloaked as law firms and lawyers will be behind bars for eternity with loss of the entire partnerships assets in a successful RICO prosecution.

Knowing that it was all or nothing for the powerful law firms, they had to block due process at every venue at the highest levels, as if any of the complaints, court proceedings or investigations elevated the Billions of Dollars of revenue these firms generate would be gone and legal robes exchanged for prison garb.

Herein lies the motive for the Cover-Up Crimes and Mass of Conflicts of Interest and Violations of virtually all Attorney Conduct Codes, Judicial Cannons, Public Office Violations and Law that have infected these matters at present.

So thick are the Conflicts that not one person out of all of the courts, disciplinary agencies, law enforcement agencies, even this Committee have signed the requested Conflict of Interest Disclosure Forms provided prior to taking action in the matters.

I have provided a Conflict form for the Committee submitted with my Prepared Statement for the June 08, 2009 hearing that did not happen and again have submitted one accompanying this Prepared Statement for my testimony today, again I respectfully demand signing of this COI before the Committee takes action in anyway that may have any impact good or bad on my case.
New York Ethics Complaints Filed in 2003 and Dismissed Without Investigation; The Commissioner of Patents for the US Patent Office and Harry I. Moatz, Director of OED of the US Patent Office lead Federal Investigation of Same Attorneys State Bars and Disciplinary Agencies Dismissed without Investigation; West Palm Beach FBI Joins Patent Fraud Investigation Regarding Fraud Directly Upon the USPTO.

I filed complaints of professional misconduct instantly against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Christopher Wheeler, Meltzer, Raymond Joao, Foley and William Dick and continuously since 2003 alleged a host of professional misconduct, adding new Defendants in my lawsuit who became involved in the Cover-Up Crimes such as Krane, Cahill, the First Department and more.

Copies of the complaints can be found on the homepage or in the written Prepared Statement submitted herein to the Committee and in the Exhibit Section at the end of the document and for inclusion into this Committees permanent record, as promised by members of this Committee in accepting this statement.

I also note for this Committee that I fully reported the Iviewit Frauds on the courts committed by those adjudicating the matters in conflicts in both the courts and state disciplinary agencies, to the West Palm Beach FBI office.

Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi of that office was already investigating the Iviewit companies’ allegations of Frauds, Fraud on the USPTO, Intellectual Property Theft, Death Threats and the Attempted Murder by Car Bombing of my Family Mini-Van in Boynton Beach, Florida.

According to the FBI, later, Lucchesi and the Iviewit files went, and remain missing at this time, although upon last speaking to Lucchesi, he was on his way to the US Patent Office to begin investigating the Fraud on the US Patent Office with investigators at the US Patent Office.

Moatz confirmed that Lucchesi was in fact working with the US Patent Office regarding the Frauds on the USPTO.

The reporting of these public office crimes to the FBI and the missing investigator, led the FBI West Palm Beach Office to direct me to speak only with the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility ( OPR ) the department responsible for handling misconduct complaints against DOJ & US attorneys. When OPR refused to speak with me, claiming they could not speak with private citizens, Inspector General of the DOJ, Glenn Fine’s Office interceded and the matters where then directed to Alberto Gonzales, then to Michael Mukasey both of them who failed to respond to formal written complaints prior to them fleeing or being forced out of office.

The matters have now been forwarded on to US Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr. and while we await response from Holder at this time, we have not had a response yet.

Perhaps he is busy investigating the crimes of lawyers for war crimes or the crimes of lawyers in politicizing the DOJ, or the torture memo lawyers who violated international torture treatises and more or perhaps he is busy investigating the lawyers behind the financial market meltdown who have destroyed our economy for the benefit of a few, mostly criminals disguised as lawyers.

A Copy of the Letter to President Barack Obama and Holder can found on the Iviewit Homepage or @

http://Iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

and http://Iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20080411%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20FBI%20OPR%20letter%20signed%20sent%20and%20printed%20copy.pdf

Ultimately, Iviewit filed a Complaint of Professional Misconduct against NYS First Dept Disciplinary Committee Chief Counsel Cahill, when it was learned that Cahill had allowed Steven C. Krane of Proskauer, an active Official of the First Department to handle complaints against Proskauer Rose and Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein and ultimately himself, Iviewit filed further complaints for Violations of Public Office, Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes and Violations of Law against all of them.

Yes, Steven C Krane represented the complaints filed against his firm, partners and himself, all the while concealing multiple conflicts of interest and violations of public offices at the First Department which excluded from such twisted representation.

In Florida at the State Bar we find similarly
Proskauer partner Matthew Triggs

While Krane was handling the complaints he was a member of the First Department and kept this Conflict undisclosed while he levied responses on behalf of his clients Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein that were attempts to smear the Iviewit companies and myself, claiming Iviewit was a failed dot com and that Kenneth Rubenstein never heard of Iviewit and that Proskauer knew nothing about the patents, all while failing to disclose his First Department Roles and CONFLICT.

Krane, also in his role at the time as immediate past PRESIDENT of the NYSBA had public office rules barring his handling of disciplinary complaints for a period of one year after his service.

His representations of his firm and Proskauer Rose falling within that blackout and Krane again fails to disclose this Public Office Rule and Regulation that prevented his representation.

It is interesting to note that without knowing of the concealed conflicts and violations of public offices at the time, how the complaints within the First Department, despite the overwhelming evidence presented to the State Bar and Disciplinary Committees and despite the fact that the Federal Patent Bar, USPTO, USPTO OED and FBI were investigating them, how the state complaints had been “Stalled” Indefinitely. It was not until discovering the conflicts that it became overwhelming apparent.

Iviewit has found Proskauer or Foley in every instance where there was dismissal with no investigation by a State Bar or Disciplinary, much later into the investigations, the Conflicts of Interest and Violations of Public Offices that acted as the glue that bound the Cover-Up causing the delays and dismissals without investigation, even as the First Department Court Unanimously Ordered Krane and the others for formal and procedural “INVESTIGATIONS” based on the Krane and Cahill conflict information.

It was only recently exposed in July 2007 that the underlying "Patentgate" inquiries were effectively buried, or derailed, under the leadership of Manhattan's top State ethics Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. Cahill's "retirement" was then quickly announced after his own ethical failings in the Patentgate matter and other unfolding scandal as Anderson began surfacing with Whistleblower allegations, along with other ethics complaints that were made, became known.

Then the Whistleblower Anderson came along to confirm ones worst nightmares about the Disciplinary Committees and Courts of New York. It should be noted that Cahill was later deposed in Anderson. From an article in Expose Corrupt Courts, I quote,

July 16 2007 DOJ Widens Patentgate Inquiry:

In a letter dated July 16, 2007, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, announced from its Washington, D.C. headquarters that it was expanding its investigation into a bizarrely stalled FBI investigation that involves an almost surreal story of the theft of nearly 30 U.S. Patents, and other intellectual property, worth billions of dollars.

The probe reaches some of New York's most prominent politicians and judges, and has already proven to be a stunning embarrassment to the State's ethics watchdog committees.

The Fox and the Hen House
It was only recently exposed in July that the underlying “Patentgate” inquiries were effectively buried, or derailed, under the leadership of Manhattan’s top State ethics Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. Mr. Cahill’s “retirement” was then quickly announced after his own ethical failings in the Patentgate matter, along with other ethics complaints that were made, became known.

While no one can exactly figure out how inquiries under Mr. Cahill’s charge went so awry, one thing is certain. At the same time the Patentgate probes were being secreted by state officials in New York, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent bar increased their own investigation into the same matter implicating the same attorneys. (Note: Mr. Cahill’s replacement was recently decided, and an announcement is expected as early as next week by the Appellate Division, First Department Presiding Justice, Jonathan Lippman.)

Article @ http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html

The Damning Whistleblower Case of Christine C. Anderson –Allegations of Coercion, Assault, Title 18 and State Obstruction of Justice via Official Supreme Court Document Destruction Inside the First Department by Public Officials, for “Favored Law Firms”
Christine Anderson provides a pivotal link in her heroic Whistleblowing revelations that shed insight into the criminal behavior running rampant at the highest levels of the First Department, including Coercion, Obstruction, Tampering with Official Investigatory Files, Threatening Federal Witnesses, Document Destruction and Physical Assaults on a Whistleblower tying Iviewit to her own complaint.

Anderson’s original lawsuit filing discussed the impact of Iviewit on her situation relating to a Complaint filed against Cahill and others13, as part of her allegations. Anderson’s Original Complaint can be found at Iviewit Homepage, Evidence Link or @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf

Pages 24-25 contain references to the Iviewit Cahill, Krane et al. complaints.

Christine C. Anderson a former Staff Attorney at the First Dept filed WHISTLEBLOWER allegations in a Fed Whistleblower suit slated for trial Oct 13 in US District Court Southern District NY (USDC), Anderson v State of NY, 07cv09599.

http://iviewit.tv/press/press1.pdf

Anderson’s suit adjudicated by Judge Shira Scheindlin contains allegations of retaliation against Anderson for termination from her job of 6 years, after Anderson exposed systemic Whitewashing & Obstruction inside the First Dept, claiming favoritism by the First Dept for favored law firms & attorneys.

I have attached in my Prepared Statement links to several news articles relating to Anderson.

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/04/andersons-10-million-lawsuit-proceeds.html & http://iviewit.tv/press/press2.pdf

Anderson’s suit set to bring volcanic like testimony involving Public Office corruption & testimony by officials of the NY State Unified Court system, including Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, Presiding Judge at the First Dept during the firing of Anderson. Along with Lippman will be Defendants in Anderson, First Dept Supervisor Sherry Cohen, Former Chief Counsel Thomas J. Cahill, Hon John Buckley, David Spokony & Catherine O’Hagen Wolfe, Clerk @ US Second Circuit Court of Appeals (USCA), an initial Anderson defendant in her former job as Clerk for the First Dept, now witness in Anderson.

Anderson claims Physical Assault & Harassment by Cohen for her heroic WHISTLEBLOWING efforts, Anderson gave riveting testimony at the first of these hearings by the NY Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Hon. Senator John L. Sampson.

Anderson’s testimony found online and links again are provided in the written statement. Anderson’s testimony comes at 30min into the video found online at the NY State Senate Website or @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fiviewit%2Etv%2F&feature=player_embedded

Prior to permitting Anderson to trial, Scheindlin marked 7 suits, including Iviewit’s Multi-Count Multi-Trillion Dollar suit http://iviewit.tv/press/press3.pdf legally “related” to Anderson.""

Source of POST
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+Reardon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Iviewit
More on the Stolen Iviewit Patents at
www.DeniedPatent.com
RICO
Wachovia, Bankruptcy Corruption, Brian Utley
Senator John L. Sampson

Crystal Cox - Whistleblower

Crystal L. Cox

  © Blogger template 'Isfahan' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP