Proskauer Rose LLP Gregg M. Mashberg Knows FULL Well that Stephen Lamont has NO Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

Proskauer Rose Law Firm Knows that Stephen Lamont has NO LEGAL Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

So why is the Corrupt Law Firm of Proskauer Rose Responding to an Illegal Filing by Stephen Lamont on Behalf of Iviewit Technologies?

Could it be that Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose is doing this to deliberately fraud the courts, as Stephen Lamont is VERY Connected to Judith Kaye, ex-supreme court judge who was married to Proskauer Rose Partner Stephen Kaye - and Judith Kaye use to Work at IBM and is connected with William Dick who also use to work at IBM and is connected to the Iviewit Patent Suppression and iViewit Invention Theft.

So it seems to me that New York Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose Law Firm is deliberately frauding the courts and the motive seems to me to be to cause further stalling of the Iviewit Technology patent and to further prolong the Federal RICO Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose, the Criminal Complaint and SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose and to Protect the Corrupt MPEG LA to keep making Billions a year on a technology that Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP knew he had stolen for MPEG LA over a Decade Ago.

So why is this all going on Right Now?

What is P. Stephen Lamont up to with Gregg M. Mashberg and the Pro Se Party over there at the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?

Eliot Bernstein did Not initiate this at this Time, P. Stephen Lamont did and P. Stephen Lamont has No Legal Right to Speak for Eliot Bernstein, nor does P. Stephen Lamont have a right to speak for the iViewit Investors or the iViewit Inventors.

For Proskauer Rose LLP to Continue in this scam, they are blatantly playing games on Judge Shira Scheindlin and making a mockery out of the New York Courts. Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose is Doing This Deliberately to confuse the issue and to keep Stephen Lamont involved somehow. All the Motives here are Unclear, and well it is not like YOU can Complain to the New York Bar - as Proskauer Rose LLP controls the New York Bar.

Stephen Lamont is Under Investigation for Fraudulently Representing iViewit and other Suspected Illegal Activities and though Gregg M. Mashberg and Proskauer Rose LLP KNOW this, still Gregg M. Mashberg files this JOKE on the New York Courts, Why?


Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLP

Just How Corrupt is Gregg M. Mashberg - I mean Come on Stephen Lamont ILLEGALLY Files a "Bernstein Vs. Appellate Division First Department..." and Even though Gregg Mashberg, Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney KNOWS that P. Stephen Lamont has No Right to Do so, Still Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP has a RESPONSE Delivered?


A Hand Delivered Response from Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Proskauer Rose LLP, Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg RESPONDS to P. Stephen Lamont's Fraudulent Court Filings on Behalf of iViewit when Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLPAttorrney knows that Stephen Lamont has no Right to be filing anything on behalf of iViewit.


Proskauer Rose LLP, Gregg M. Mashberg Attorneys Pro Se for Proskauer Rose LLP
and Attorneys for Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane and and the Estate of Steven Rackow Kaye .. and "Respectfully Submitted" - that is BULL - it is Lies and Cover Ups and no Respect Intended..


The Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is Still representing themselves in the Iviewit Stolen Technology Case. Odd that 2 of the Above Attorneys have Died, and they are VERY Guilty of Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent. And yet still Proskauer Ross LLP seems to Run the New York Justice System and Get Their Way.

There is Tons of Proof on Proskauer Rose's Guilt in the Stealing of the Iviewit Technologies Invention and in Proskauer Roses Law Firm using this to Entice Enron, which led to the Collapse of Enron and Billions Lost to Investors. Which is the Same thing that Will Soon happen at Intel Corp. , Time Warner, Warner Bros., SONY, Lockheed Martin, and More..

So what is Gregg M. Mashberg and the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm Really Up to with this, the Latest Stunt in the Decade Old Saga of Proskauer Rose Patent Thieves for MPEG LA.

Click Here for Eliot Bernstein iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Stephen Kaye, MPEG LA and many others...

Got a Tip on Gregg M. Mashberg or Proskauer Rose LLP ?
eMail me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Andrew Cuomo Follows In Eliot Spitzer’s Footprints In Pursuit of “The Ring” and Governorship Ignoring The Law And Rules.

"Andrew Cuomo Follows In Eliot Spitzer’s Footprints In Pursuit of “The Ring” and Governorship Ignoring The Law And Rules To Amass A 16 Million Dollar Treasury.

Can Andrew Cuomo follow Eliot Spitzer’s example pursuing the Governorship and fund his campaign treasury with payments from opposing attorneys with actions against NY State?.

For_Immediate_Release:
Terence Finnan reports on his blog CuomoTARP.blogspot.com , that one can follow Cuomo’s and Spitzer’s Money Trails pursuing for themselves “The Ring,” specifically the Governorship and, ultimately, the Presidency. Mr. Finnan reports of the joy in London over Spitzer’s role in taking money out of the NY Financial Markets, ” History will come to view him (Spitzer) as one of the most damaging figures in the history of the state. It is difficult to imagine that he will, as governor, do anything to counter the damage he has already done to American business, or even that he would wish to do so. ”Mr. Finnan asks, “Is Cuomo like Spitzer, a Gollum, obsessed with the ‘Ring,’ and becoming Governor and our first Italian president?” Mr. Finnan further asks, ” Do the People of NY benefit when Cuomo shakes down lawyers for his campaign treasury, instead of Spitzer shaking down Wall Street? What benefit to the People of NY accrues when Cuomo builds a 16 million dollar campaign fund with payoffs by lawyers with cases against NY State. In the end, weren’t the payoffs made to Cuomo’s treasury only passed on as an expense of the People of NY whose interests were compromised?”Following the advice in Matthew 6:24 “No man can serve two masters,” Mr. Finnan asks whether Andrew Cuomo can serve as the People’s attorney and at the same time collect payments from opposing lawyers?Mr. Finnan quotes the applicable Disciplinary Rule DR 5-101 [1200.20] concerning “Conflicts of Interest” and asks whether Andrew Cuomo obtained permission from the People of NY to take money from opposing attorneys?Finally, Mr. Finnan asks three questions of Andrew Cuomo:1. Did you obtain the consent of the People after full disclosure of the implications before you took the money for your own personal campaign interests?2. A special prosecutor?3. Is your defense, Spitzer did it first?
Earlier posts had asked Andrew Cuomo to support making “Official Misconduct” a felony, instead of a misdemeanor and presented criminal complaints to facilitate Andrew Cuomo to prosecute several State Judges and Senators for criminal conduct..

####
For more information:Keywords: Andrew Cuomo,Eliot Spitzer,Cuomo Corruption

Tags: Andrew Cuomo, christine c. anderson, eliot bernstein, Eliot Spitzer, eric holder, First Department, first department disciplinary, JUDITH KAYE, mario cuomo, ny senate judiciary committee, proskauer, SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, thomas cahill ""

Source of Post
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=295

"John Lovett, the lawyer for the fired lawyer, Christine C. Anderson, told the six-member jury t

"' Whatever the new media version of "EXTRA! EXTRA!" READ ALL ABOUT IT!" might be, imagine me doing it.

Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, famously of the Zubulake decisions that were the crucible of modern e-discovery practice, has done it again. In the course of an 87-page opinion and order, Her Honor invokes the only line anyone ever remembers from George Santayana and sanctions 13 plaintiffs for negligence and gross negligence in connection with their--ahem--'lackluster' preservation of and search for ESI.

The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, January 10, 2010)

It's a decison that will ruffle feathers in high places. E.g., Her Honor observes: "[T]he admitted failure to preserve some records or search at all for others...leads inexorably to the conclusion that relevant records have been lost or destroyed." (at 35).

Also, while Judge Scheindlin isn't the first to state that the failure to issue a written legal hold notice is "gross negligence," she seems to afford no quarter to effectuating a defensible hold any other way. It appears a face-to-face meeting, phone call, voice mail or course of dealing won't suffice to deflect a determination of gross negligence.

Too, that written hold notice had better be a strong, unambiguous directive to find, preserve and collect, coupled with close supervision of the effort. Total reliance on an employee to search and select won't cut it in Judge Scheindlin's court.

The decision puts a nail in the coffin of custodial-delegated holds and persuades me that, at least in the SDNY, no nabob should delegate preservation and search to minions, and certainly no lawyer should leave search to clients alone.

The opinion prompts further resignation to keep everything--especially all e-mail--and cease rotating tapes ahould someone so much as whisper the word "lawsuit."

Make no mistake: the plaintiffs were no models of probity and diligence. But, reading the particulars of their misconduct, I was struck less by the gravity of their negligence than by how unremarkable their sleepy, sloppy conduct sounded.

Granted, they brought the suit and were duty bound to make production, but think about it: These folks had already lost $550 million to botched investments.

Can't you imagine how thrilled they must have been to devote more time and money to answering discovery requests from the folks that (allegedly) flushed their fortunes away?

They say the rich are different. But not when it comes to e-discovery. They botch it, too! "'

Link to Source and Lots More ..
http://www.eddupdate.com/2010/01/zubulake-revisted.html

Blatant and Obvious Fraud on the US Court System. Patent Office Fraud, Patent Attorney Corruption, Supreme Court Corruption, Trillions of Dollars.

The Iviewit Stolen Patent Story is very interesting to Say the Least as it Exposes Corruption in US Courts, Exposes Patent Attorneys Ease in which they can Steal Inventions, Exposes Supreme Court Judges and Attorney Bar Association that Cover Up the Corruption, Side Deals and Favoritism among preferred - Elite - Wealthy Attorneys, and Really wakes you up to Big Corporations Like Intel Corp., Lockheed Martin, Time Warner Inc., Sony, and all the Other major Corporations participating in this Cover Up to Deny Inventors Rights, Deny Due Process and Continue Using their Technology - Simply Ignore 8 and 10 year old Contracts, Blatantly VIOLATED Confidentiality Agreements and violating Law after Law with thus far - No Accountability.

The US Patent Office Deny Rights of Inventors and Seem to be Holding up Investigations for year after year while Real Peoples Live are On Hold and In Danger.

The US Bankruptcy Court System has blatant Obvious Proven Fraud as in the Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy - the Conflicts of Interest and Illegal behavior and For Some Reason, thus far the US Bankruptcy Courts can't seem to see what has happened.

And though there are Literally thousands of Pages of documents of Proof, the US Court Sytem Seems to be Aiding And Abetting the Criminals in all this, Seemingly just because they are Major US Corporations, Meg-Law Firms, Court Judges, Supreme Court Judges, and State Attorney Bars - there is so Much Corruption Truly Where Does One Begin.

We Begin by Understanding the Iviewit Stolen Patent Story, who the Criminals Are, Who are the seemingly Protected Patent Attorneys in all this, Which Supreme Court Judges are Looking the Other way to this Blatant and Obvious Corruption, Who in the State Attorney Bar Complaint Process is Allow this. Once we understand this at least to Some Degree we can see how this happens in the US Courts and How those In Judicial Power Either Willing Let it Happen, Accept Bribes and Pay Offs, or are Threatened Somehow.

How Does a Trillion Dollar Patent Heist Get Pulled Off and For over a Decade So Far.

Well Go to the Links Below and Find Out More on How this Level of Corruption Happens in Your United States Court System.

Click Here to Read what Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J had to Say in August of 2008 about the Fraud, Deceit, and Misrepresentation in the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case.

Also Check Out www.DeniedPatent.com for Names and Players and How A Theft of this Magnitude Can Be Pulled Off in the United States.

Also Go to www.Iviewit.TV Scroll Down Read Through some Documents, I know it is a Lot to Take in, but boy does it Open your Eyes to How Easy Trillion Dollar Heists Really are when you Know the Right People and have the Right Money.

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,

Roy L. Reardon, DRAFT Response to Roy Reardon - New York Supreme Court Appellate Division - Chairman

DRAFT Response to Roy Reardon, New York Supreme Court
How Long Can This Guy handle Complaints against Himself, be involved Coverups, Conspiracies, and the Stealing of a Trillion Dollar Patent by way of ignoring complaints and DOING Nothing?
r
Here is the Responce to Roy L. Reardon NY Supreme Court
from Eliot Bernstein.
r
Monday, December 14, 2009
I-VIEW-IT HOLDINGS, INC.
I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
TO: Roy L. Reardon
Chairman
New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division First
Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee
61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
(212) 401-0800
also Partner @
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3954

Regarding: Your Continued Insanity in handling complaints against YOURSELF, Alan W. Friedberg and Other Defendents in a Twelve Count - Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Legally Related to a Whistleblower Causing Mass Liablity, you are Concealing from the State of New York and the People of New York.
roy reardon
Dear Mr. Reardon,
I. Response to Your Letter Dated December 07, 2009.
Your audacity bemuses me and allow me to retort to your and Mr. Friedberg’s
insanity and again put forth some basic realities regarding your misconduct and criminal
acts.

First, my seventy-eight page complaint against Mr. Friedberg and YOU, if you
have read it, is also a RE-FILED complaint against you, this letter shall serve as a third
and a bit more severe complaint.

Your letter is in response to the earlier complaints against Mr. Friedberg and yourself that you buried since February 2009, until sequestered by the NEW YORK STATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, which requested that you provide information regarding the CONCEALED complaints to them, not me.

Nevertheless, in delusion, you responded to me regarding your complaints and tried to
dismiss complaints against yourself and your partner in crime, Mr. Friedberg, while your
department is in a lawsuit with me. In that lawsuit, your department has representative
ILLEGALLY retained counsel, the New York Attorney General and yet you continue to
pester me with your continued handling of your own and Mr. Friedberg’s complaints, as well as, attempting ILLEGALLY to dismiss complaints against other defendants in the
lawsuit.

Let me dissect your letters errors one by one before I begin my further FORMAL
COMPLAINT against you in addition to the one you have buried for months and now try
to dismiss:

1. First, you state, “Your 78 page fax dated December 3, 2009 labeled as a
complaint against Chief Counsel Alan W. Friedberg has been referred to me.”
The problem in this statement is that you fail to see that the 78 Page Fax
Complaint, is a re-filing of the complaint you have admitted to concealing
since February 2009 against both YOU and Mr. Friedberg.

The FORMAL COMPLAINT is actually against you and Mr. Friedberg, so had you really
read the Complaint, you would see it would be impossible for it to be referred to you, as you are a Main Character in the Complaint. I resubmitted that complaint due ONLY to your prior CONCEALMENT of OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

I have attached herein, that same complaint but have individually broke it out for you with your very own cover page. By the by, your inappropriate letter that defies ethics again has NO FORMAL DOCKETING number for the Friedberg case, so I wonder how to appeal it or
if it has been CONCEALED again.

2. Next, you claim laughably, “Among other things, the document contains
copies of letters from you to State Senator John L. Sampson of the New York
Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that the DDC has engaged in conflicts of
interest, corruption and other wrongful acts. We find no merit in those
accusations.”

The silliness of your statement here, although criminal in
nature, is very telling of your cognizance of the allegations contained in the
FORMAL COMPLAINT that was CONCEALED and further stands as
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONTINUED CRIMINAL
CONDUCT in trying to dismiss complaints you and your whole department
are conflicted in, Mr. Friedberg and yourself especially, since you have
FORMAL COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST BOTH OF YOU.

Now it becomes a bit dicey for you, as your RULES AND REGULATIONS OF YOUR DEPARTMENT CLAIM § 605.6 Investigations and Informal Proceedings

(g) Preliminary Screening of Complaints. Any complaint
received by the Office of Chief Counsel against a member
of the Committee or Staff counsel involving alleged
misconduct shall be transmitted forthwith to the Committee
Chairperson, who shall assign it either to the Office of
Chief Counsel or to special counsel who shall conduct or
direct the appropriate investigation, and give a written
recommendation as to the disposition of the Complaint to
the Committee Chairperson, who shall determine the
appropriate disposition of the Complaint.

Any such Complaint which relates to the Committee Chairperson shall, in the first instance, be transmitted to a Hearing Panel Chairperson, who shall conduct the appropriate investigation and determine the appropriate disposition of the Complaint.

My complaint Mr. Roy Reardon is a twofold problem for you as the FORMAL COMPLAINTS YOU HAVE CONCEALED SINCE FEBRUARY 2009, are against YOU, acting as the Chair of the DDC and your partner in crime, Mr. Alan Friedberg, acting as Chief Counsel.

It is clever how in your SELF DISMISSING LETTER which defies ethics, you try and CONCEAL that Friedberg’s complaint has been transferred to you, which according to your own rules would be a violation, as the COMPLAINT is also against YOU.

Thus, you are AGAIN violating your OWN rules by trying to hide that you
also are knowingly COMPLAINED of FORMALLY, by way of the Sampson
Letters you have received several times now and the ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT I re-filed. Nice try, though, “desperate men…”

3. Amazingly, your letter continues “In any event, your new "complaint" against
Mr. Friedberg provides no basis on which the Committee should pursue
action.” First, there is NO NEW COMPLAINT, this is merely a re-filing of
the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT you have ILLEGALLY CONCEALED in
violation of LAW against both you and Mr. Alan W. Friedberg and now your trying to
make it as a new complaint is both ridiculous and further criminal and will so
be reported to ALL appropriate oversight authorities and criminal
investigators of your continued violations and further attempt at CRIMINAL
CONCEALMENT.

Second, since you should not be handling complaints against yourself or your partner in crime Mr. Friedberg, it defies logic and law how you claim there is no basis in a complaint against yourself and where you should have already turned the matter over, per your rules you would have to turn the matter over to a Hearing Panel Chair, which obviously you fail to do in regard to the FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AND MR.
FRIEDBERG.

Again serving as prima facie evidence of your CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, this statement will also be forwarded to all
appropriate oversight of your continued CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

4. The next statement truly shows your detachment from both reality and the
rules and regulations that define ETHICS. I quote your insanity, “Indeed, you
appear to be arguing that anyone associated with the Committee is precluded
from considering the merits of your complaint.” Yes indeed Mr. Reardon I do
make the claim that NOBODY in your department can handle these
complaints and for several factual reasons.

First, your department is a DEFENDANT in a 12-COUNT, 12-TRILLION dollar LAWSUIT, which I am certain you are not concealing from state auditors, well, perhaps you could clarify that for me in writing, as I am sure you are reporting the liability on
your and the states books, liabilities directly related to your CRIMINAL
CONDUCT and CONTINUED CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

As DEFENDANT’S in the ONGOING LEGAL ACTION the whole First
Department is precluded from involvement due to CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST and THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY this creates.
Next, the CONFLICTS and APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY also act
together to create CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS. This CRIMINAL ACT, also will be reported to your
oversight and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

As the First Department DDC is a DEFENDANT in the LAWSUIT, the DDC
also has representative ILLEGAL counsel, the New York Attorney General
and Monica Connell of their offices.

Upon filing the complaints against other DEFENDANTS in the same LAWSUIT, Ms. Connell advised me as YOUR COUNSEL to file the complaints with your offices against the Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner attorneys (as the attorneys complained of are licensed
there) but that they would be moved instantly to a NON CONFLICTED
THIRD PARTY.

Moved to avoid the OBVIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY your handling of the complaints creates.

Yet, somehow, you sneaky dog, you and your partner in
crime, Mr. Friedberg, interceded and attempted to DISMISS COMPLAINTS
AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THE LAWSUIT YOUR
DEPARTMENT IS A NAMED DEFENDANT IN.

Again, these CONFLICTS act to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and will duly be noted to all
oversight of the DDC and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

Therefore, your question asks if I think anyone in your department can handle
these complaints and the answer is NO THEY CANNOT and I advise YOU,
Mr. Friedberg and any other department official that each act on these
complaints will result in further FORMAL COMPLAINTS to your oversight
and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

5. Your letter continues insanely “On October 7, 2009 I wrote to you advising that your previous complaints against Mr. Friedberg and other attorneys have been closed.” Now here your sneakiness is better than a proverbial “snake in the grass” as you attempt to state that my previous complaints filed against you and Mr. Friedberg for dismissing complaints against other DEFENDANTS are closed. Mixing apples and oranges while hiding the beef.

First, my previous complaints against other attorneys, resulted in you and Mr.
Friedberg handling them, leading to separate complaints against both you and
Mr. Friedberg.

Love how you refer to “other attorneys” in a third person voice, versus
identifying that YOU Mr. Reardon, are one of the “other” attorneys you
reference. Do you often refer to yourself in the third person; this is a very
symbolic sign of pathological behavior indicating delusion. Perhaps you
could have written more accurately, something like – your complaints against
Mr. Friedberg, MYSELF and other attorneys.

Again, you CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS, which creates further CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
Finally, I am not sure how the FORMAL COMPLAINTS can be closed when they have not been opened formally with Complaint Numbers for me to even respond too, as demanded in my complaint and as part of the RULES and REGULATIONS of your department that you psychotically continue to ignore, ah, “desperate men…”

6. Finally, this my favorite act of your insanity, I quote, “You may wish to
consider consulting with counsel regarding the matters raised in your
submissions.” To be clear, I have consulted counsel, YOUR COUNSEL the
New York Attorney General and it was determined that you are conflicted and
cannot handle complaints against other Defendants nor yourself and Mr.
Friedberg, per your own departmental Rules and Regulation, Part 600, per the
Attorney Code of Conduct and Law. The result, was to have the complaints moved to a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY.

I advise you therefore to consider consulting with YOUR COUNSEL regarding the matters raised against you CRIMINALLY and then CIVIL charges against you and your
department in the civil complaint.

I advise you to consult your counsel as to further pestering me directly, where
as you know, I represent myself Pro Se, so it is highly unethical and against
the Attorney Conduct Code for you, an attorney, to be contacting me directly
when you have representative counsel.

I find teaching your ethics at this point to be an utter waste of my time, as you seem not be able to discern realistically what your own ethical obligations are, nor what the Rules
you are charged with oversighting state and finally the Law.

I therefore highly recommend that you discontinue with contacting me directly and have
your attorney handle these matters going forward.

Of course, your attorney, the New York Attorney General, is also a DEFENDANT in my LAWSUIT and his representation is therefore suspect as aiding and abetting illegally your department through CONFLICTED representation that VIOLATES the NYAG Rules Public Office Rule 17 for one and that ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION also compounds to cause
Obstruction of Justice as the Conflict precludes the NYAG from doing his public duty of investigating dirty rotten Public Officials, like yourself and Mr. Friedberg.

As my LAWSUIT has been marked legally “RELATED” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin to that of the First Department DDC Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson, we see that Anderson similarly is complaining that the NYAG illegal representation of State Defendants from your offices, is a Violation of the NYAG Rules and Regulations and Law, whereby you can get a gander for her position at the following URL, incorporated by reference in entirety herein @ ____________

The allegations in the FORMAL COMPLAINTS against Mr. Friedberg and yourself are replete with concrete evidence of crimes you are committing by violating the very ethics laws you and Mr. Friedberg are in charge of upholding. Conflicts like your department and several of the First Department Judges are direct defendants in a TWELVE COUNT, TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL LAWSUIT that of course, I know you are not too delusional to have reported this liability and your involvement to any state auditors, state agencies and others who have liability resulting from your continued criminal conduct.

The very fact that you attempt to ignore the conflicts and continue to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE in violation of FEDERAL and STATE CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION LAWS, ATTORNEY ETHICS CODES and more will be formally reported to your oversight and criminal authorities.

Yet, while your letter attempts to claim no conflict, almost, you failed to sign and
return the CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM attached to the
COMPLAINT. This failure serves as further evidence of your CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION through CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which now will be formulated
along with this letter, to several of your oversight authorities, as a FORMAL AFFIRMED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.

Under the laws of NEW YORK and the UNITED STATES, in the interim until authorities can arrest you for your felonious acts, I place you under CITIZENS ARREST and I advise you not only to seek independent counsel but also to turn yourself in to the proper authorities for processing for FELONY charges both state and federal.

I remind you that I have sent the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK
and FEDERAL AUTHORITIES information regarding your involvement in RICO
related crimes, along with many in your department.

Quite contrary to your claim, I do not think anyone in your CORRUPT COMMITTEE or DEPARTMENT can handle these complaints without conflict and if you are so confident in your meritorious good work on behalf of the Good People of New York, you should welcome a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY review, as certainly you have nothing to hide.

Nothing to hide but everything, including the complaint against yourself that you keep concealing, even in your recent reply trying to dismiss the FORMAL COMPLAINT
against Mr. Friedberg while failing to state that you are also complained of since February of 2009, making your handling of any complaints, including your own, not only conflicted but criminal. Your attached letter, mentions other attorneys complained of but
fails to mention that YOU sir are one of those complained of and therefore are certainly
conflicted.

II. Actions to be Taken
• Please see 78 Page Complaint Against You filed for a Second Time since
February 2009 after you concealed those complaints

• This complaint is a refilling of that complaint and submission to the
Judiciary Committee for Oversight of Your Office and pursuing criminal investigations
within their scope of power over your Department, as part of the ONGOING
INVESTIGATION BY THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ABOUT YOUR and YOUR DEPARTMENTS FAILURE IN TOTO.

• Note that we are attaching copy of a SWORN AFFIRMED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT to all of the following, including but not limited to,
o Blah
o Blah

III. Conclusion
According to Whistleblower Christine Anderson under sworn oath in a Federal
Court and many others who have come forth to expose the ongoing Whitewashing of
Complaints, your offices are alleged to be involved in criminal obstruction of official
proceedings and threatening federal witnesses.

Nice reputation for an ETHICS department but we will get to that in a moment.

Not only are your offices accused of obstructing proceedings against “Favored Law Firms and Lawyers” but further criminal Whitewashing of Complaints was also alleged in regard to Whitewashing disciplinary complaints for the US Attorney, District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney by the “Cleaner”.

The “Cleaner” aka Naomi Goldstein of your offices, so named by your former Staff Attorney, Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson your offices should be under not only internal investigation but external.

Again, solid reasons for you and your entire department’s recusal from further involvement, other than turning yourself in and getting non-conflicted counsel to represent you.

Further, and most importantly, your failure to regulate the misconducts of the lawyers in your department according to well established rules and regulations of your department, you have failed this great nation and the People of the Great State of New York in your obfuscations of regulation.

For example, had you done your job investigating Proskauer Rose for example when I first complained, your department could have saved many peoples losses in the Sir Allan Stanford affairs, where Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom ( a former SEC Enforcement Employee ) were involved in teaching employees how to lie to Federal Authorities and have been sued for the entire amount of the Ponzi losses in a Global Class Action lawsuit.

My recommendation will be for any unrecoverable losses that those VICTIMS sue you and
your department for failure to regulate and possible conspiratorial roles in the cover up of
the crimes.

Had you investigated Proskauer Rose when I first informed you of their misconducts
and crimes, you also could have prevented many people over the 7 seven years from
losing their lives savings in the Bernard Madoff affair and saved the hundreds of charities
destroyed by Madoff and lives ruined.

Yes, you are the oversight that could have prevented these calamities and are responsible for your failures to the victims. In fact, since Proskauer appears to have senior partners basically running the First Department and the Ethics Department from Steven C. Krane, a Proskauer partner caught handling his own and his firms complaints while an officer of the First Department DDC, to recently deceased DDC officer Stephen Rakowe Kaye, a Proskauer partner and married to former Chief Judge Judith Kaye who had ultimate control over the department with her husband and Krane her former clerk, no wonder complaints bounced off them into your trash can.

Yet and personally more tragic, is the fact that had you done your job regulating
the attorneys, your “favored law firms and lawyers” most likely a BOMB would not have
been placed in my family minivan ( images at www.iviewit.tv ) allowing someone to
ATTEMPT to MURDER us.

It is strange to note how the timing of that event coincided with discovery that STEVEN C. KRANE of Proskauer and Thomas Cahill ( former Chief Counsel of the DDC ) where found violating First Department DDC Rules and Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law leading to the First Department Court, in inanimous consent, transferring complaints against Krane of PROSKAUER and also a FIRST DEPARTMENT OFFICER, Krane’s Proskauer partners he was representing ILLEGALLY in complaints while a DDC OFFICER and even Krane representing himself while an officer ( sounds familiar ).

Thomas Cahill also was transferred for Special Inquiry at that time and your recent handling of that complaint, with Mr. Stephen Lamont and attempting to dismiss that complaint, again while really clever, will also be further evidence of your CRIMINAL ACTS filed with CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES.

Lest us not forget to remind those judging your actions of the fact that your
department is supposed to regulate Wall Street lawyers and we can all see what your lax
regulations have produced.

I also remind you that your department appears to be the regulator for several fine attorneys in the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel who are being accused of war crimes for their violations of ethics and law that have allowed the torture and murder of innocent untried people, quite similar to Nazi Extermination Camps where habeas rights similarly were removed by dirty rotten lawyers, who were actually criminals with legal degrees who made concentration camps and murder legal for undesirables.

I remind you of the Judges Trial so that today while you feel elevated above the law, enough so to first conceal and then attempt to dismiss complaints against yourself, in drunken and high delusions of grandeur, that one day you will be tried for these crimes as Justice is restored and even the Nazi lawyers and judges had their day in the infamous Judges Trial at the Nuremberg Trials. I await hearing your defenses from behind the glass.

Truly, and I mean this FIGURATIVELY not LITERALLY, I hope this letter feels
like a bomb in your car and you may live with your family in similar trepidation that one
day your world will end, when your scam ends and you are tried in a fair and impartial
court, free of conflict ( you know the thing your supposed to be protecting ) where
hopefully you will serve the remainder of your life contemplating the magnanimity of the
damage you have done to my family, my shareholders, those you have embroiled in your
crimes like Ms. Anderson, those victims of your crimes that appear lining up with each
new Judiciary Committee, all those who lost homes or 401k’s from lawyers schemes in
an unregulated capacity free to commit financial crimes, as the REGULATOR, YOU was
naught more than a criminal in on the crimes.

Most DisRespectfully Yours,

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
cc/ec:

Roy L. Reardon
Chairman Monday, December 14, 2009
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee

Re: YOUR CONTINUED INSANITY IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOURSELF,
ALAN W. FRIEDBERG AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN A TWELVE COUNT TWELVE
TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT LEGALLY RELATED TO A WHISTLEBLOWER
CAUSING MASS LIABILITY YOU ARE CONCEALING FROM THE STATE AND
PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM YOUR CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT
roy reardon
Iviewit Holdings , Inc.
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.


Source:
www.iviewit.tv
r
Much More on Roy L. Reardon Coming Soon.
r

Roy L. Reardon, DRAFT Response to Roy Reardon - New York Supreme Court Appellate Division - Chairman

DRAFT Response to Roy Reardon, New York Supreme Court
How Long Can This Guy handle Complaints against Himself, be involved Coverups, Conspiracies, and the Stealing of a Trillion Dollar Patent by way of ignoring complaints and DOING Nothing?
r
Here is the Responce to Roy L. Reardon NY Supreme Court
from Eliot Bernstein.
r
Monday, December 14, 2009
I-VIEW-IT HOLDINGS, INC.
I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
TO: Roy L. Reardon
Chairman
New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division First
Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee
61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
(212) 401-0800
also Partner @
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3954

Regarding: Your Continued Insanity in handling complaints against YOURSELF, Alan W. Friedberg and Other Defendents in a Twelve Count - Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Legally Related to a Whistleblower Causing Mass Liablity, you are Concealing from the State of New York and the People of New York.
roy reardon
Dear Mr. Reardon,
I. Response to Your Letter Dated December 07, 2009.
Your audacity bemuses me and allow me to retort to your and Mr. Friedberg’s
insanity and again put forth some basic realities regarding your misconduct and criminal
acts.

First, my seventy-eight page complaint against Mr. Friedberg and YOU, if you
have read it, is also a RE-FILED complaint against you, this letter shall serve as a third
and a bit more severe complaint.

Your letter is in response to the earlier complaints against Mr. Friedberg and yourself that you buried since February 2009, until sequestered by the NEW YORK STATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, which requested that you provide information regarding the CONCEALED complaints to them, not me.

Nevertheless, in delusion, you responded to me regarding your complaints and tried to
dismiss complaints against yourself and your partner in crime, Mr. Friedberg, while your
department is in a lawsuit with me. In that lawsuit, your department has representative
ILLEGALLY retained counsel, the New York Attorney General and yet you continue to
pester me with your continued handling of your own and Mr. Friedberg’s complaints, as well as, attempting ILLEGALLY to dismiss complaints against other defendants in the
lawsuit.

Let me dissect your letters errors one by one before I begin my further FORMAL
COMPLAINT against you in addition to the one you have buried for months and now try
to dismiss:

1. First, you state, “Your 78 page fax dated December 3, 2009 labeled as a
complaint against Chief Counsel Alan W. Friedberg has been referred to me.”
The problem in this statement is that you fail to see that the 78 Page Fax
Complaint, is a re-filing of the complaint you have admitted to concealing
since February 2009 against both YOU and Mr. Friedberg.

The FORMAL COMPLAINT is actually against you and Mr. Friedberg, so had you really
read the Complaint, you would see it would be impossible for it to be referred to you, as you are a Main Character in the Complaint. I resubmitted that complaint due ONLY to your prior CONCEALMENT of OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

I have attached herein, that same complaint but have individually broke it out for you with your very own cover page. By the by, your inappropriate letter that defies ethics again has NO FORMAL DOCKETING number for the Friedberg case, so I wonder how to appeal it or
if it has been CONCEALED again.

2. Next, you claim laughably, “Among other things, the document contains
copies of letters from you to State Senator John L. Sampson of the New York
Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that the DDC has engaged in conflicts of
interest, corruption and other wrongful acts. We find no merit in those
accusations.”

The silliness of your statement here, although criminal in
nature, is very telling of your cognizance of the allegations contained in the
FORMAL COMPLAINT that was CONCEALED and further stands as
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONTINUED CRIMINAL
CONDUCT in trying to dismiss complaints you and your whole department
are conflicted in, Mr. Friedberg and yourself especially, since you have
FORMAL COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST BOTH OF YOU.

Now it becomes a bit dicey for you, as your RULES AND REGULATIONS OF YOUR DEPARTMENT CLAIM § 605.6 Investigations and Informal Proceedings

(g) Preliminary Screening of Complaints. Any complaint
received by the Office of Chief Counsel against a member
of the Committee or Staff counsel involving alleged
misconduct shall be transmitted forthwith to the Committee
Chairperson, who shall assign it either to the Office of
Chief Counsel or to special counsel who shall conduct or
direct the appropriate investigation, and give a written
recommendation as to the disposition of the Complaint to
the Committee Chairperson, who shall determine the
appropriate disposition of the Complaint.

Any such Complaint which relates to the Committee Chairperson shall, in the first instance, be transmitted to a Hearing Panel Chairperson, who shall conduct the appropriate investigation and determine the appropriate disposition of the Complaint.

My complaint Mr. Roy Reardon is a twofold problem for you as the FORMAL COMPLAINTS YOU HAVE CONCEALED SINCE FEBRUARY 2009, are against YOU, acting as the Chair of the DDC and your partner in crime, Mr. Alan Friedberg, acting as Chief Counsel.

It is clever how in your SELF DISMISSING LETTER which defies ethics, you try and CONCEAL that Friedberg’s complaint has been transferred to you, which according to your own rules would be a violation, as the COMPLAINT is also against YOU.

Thus, you are AGAIN violating your OWN rules by trying to hide that you
also are knowingly COMPLAINED of FORMALLY, by way of the Sampson
Letters you have received several times now and the ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT I re-filed. Nice try, though, “desperate men…”

3. Amazingly, your letter continues “In any event, your new "complaint" against
Mr. Friedberg provides no basis on which the Committee should pursue
action.” First, there is NO NEW COMPLAINT, this is merely a re-filing of
the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT you have ILLEGALLY CONCEALED in
violation of LAW against both you and Mr. Alan W. Friedberg and now your trying to
make it as a new complaint is both ridiculous and further criminal and will so
be reported to ALL appropriate oversight authorities and criminal
investigators of your continued violations and further attempt at CRIMINAL
CONCEALMENT.

Second, since you should not be handling complaints against yourself or your partner in crime Mr. Friedberg, it defies logic and law how you claim there is no basis in a complaint against yourself and where you should have already turned the matter over, per your rules you would have to turn the matter over to a Hearing Panel Chair, which obviously you fail to do in regard to the FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AND MR.
FRIEDBERG.

Again serving as prima facie evidence of your CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, this statement will also be forwarded to all
appropriate oversight of your continued CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

4. The next statement truly shows your detachment from both reality and the
rules and regulations that define ETHICS. I quote your insanity, “Indeed, you
appear to be arguing that anyone associated with the Committee is precluded
from considering the merits of your complaint.” Yes indeed Mr. Reardon I do
make the claim that NOBODY in your department can handle these
complaints and for several factual reasons.

First, your department is a DEFENDANT in a 12-COUNT, 12-TRILLION dollar LAWSUIT, which I am certain you are not concealing from state auditors, well, perhaps you could clarify that for me in writing, as I am sure you are reporting the liability on
your and the states books, liabilities directly related to your CRIMINAL
CONDUCT and CONTINUED CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

As DEFENDANT’S in the ONGOING LEGAL ACTION the whole First
Department is precluded from involvement due to CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST and THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY this creates.
Next, the CONFLICTS and APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY also act
together to create CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS. This CRIMINAL ACT, also will be reported to your
oversight and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

As the First Department DDC is a DEFENDANT in the LAWSUIT, the DDC
also has representative ILLEGAL counsel, the New York Attorney General
and Monica Connell of their offices.

Upon filing the complaints against other DEFENDANTS in the same LAWSUIT, Ms. Connell advised me as YOUR COUNSEL to file the complaints with your offices against the Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner attorneys (as the attorneys complained of are licensed
there) but that they would be moved instantly to a NON CONFLICTED
THIRD PARTY.

Moved to avoid the OBVIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY your handling of the complaints creates.

Yet, somehow, you sneaky dog, you and your partner in
crime, Mr. Friedberg, interceded and attempted to DISMISS COMPLAINTS
AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THE LAWSUIT YOUR
DEPARTMENT IS A NAMED DEFENDANT IN.

Again, these CONFLICTS act to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and will duly be noted to all
oversight of the DDC and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

Therefore, your question asks if I think anyone in your department can handle
these complaints and the answer is NO THEY CANNOT and I advise YOU,
Mr. Friedberg and any other department official that each act on these
complaints will result in further FORMAL COMPLAINTS to your oversight
and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

5. Your letter continues insanely “On October 7, 2009 I wrote to you advising that your previous complaints against Mr. Friedberg and other attorneys have been closed.” Now here your sneakiness is better than a proverbial “snake in the grass” as you attempt to state that my previous complaints filed against you and Mr. Friedberg for dismissing complaints against other DEFENDANTS are closed. Mixing apples and oranges while hiding the beef.

First, my previous complaints against other attorneys, resulted in you and Mr.
Friedberg handling them, leading to separate complaints against both you and
Mr. Friedberg.

Love how you refer to “other attorneys” in a third person voice, versus
identifying that YOU Mr. Reardon, are one of the “other” attorneys you
reference. Do you often refer to yourself in the third person; this is a very
symbolic sign of pathological behavior indicating delusion. Perhaps you
could have written more accurately, something like – your complaints against
Mr. Friedberg, MYSELF and other attorneys.

Again, you CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS, which creates further CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
Finally, I am not sure how the FORMAL COMPLAINTS can be closed when they have not been opened formally with Complaint Numbers for me to even respond too, as demanded in my complaint and as part of the RULES and REGULATIONS of your department that you psychotically continue to ignore, ah, “desperate men…”

6. Finally, this my favorite act of your insanity, I quote, “You may wish to
consider consulting with counsel regarding the matters raised in your
submissions.” To be clear, I have consulted counsel, YOUR COUNSEL the
New York Attorney General and it was determined that you are conflicted and
cannot handle complaints against other Defendants nor yourself and Mr.
Friedberg, per your own departmental Rules and Regulation, Part 600, per the
Attorney Code of Conduct and Law. The result, was to have the complaints moved to a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY.

I advise you therefore to consider consulting with YOUR COUNSEL regarding the matters raised against you CRIMINALLY and then CIVIL charges against you and your
department in the civil complaint.

I advise you to consult your counsel as to further pestering me directly, where
as you know, I represent myself Pro Se, so it is highly unethical and against
the Attorney Conduct Code for you, an attorney, to be contacting me directly
when you have representative counsel.

I find teaching your ethics at this point to be an utter waste of my time, as you seem not be able to discern realistically what your own ethical obligations are, nor what the Rules
you are charged with oversighting state and finally the Law.

I therefore highly recommend that you discontinue with contacting me directly and have
your attorney handle these matters going forward.

Of course, your attorney, the New York Attorney General, is also a DEFENDANT in my LAWSUIT and his representation is therefore suspect as aiding and abetting illegally your department through CONFLICTED representation that VIOLATES the NYAG Rules Public Office Rule 17 for one and that ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION also compounds to cause
Obstruction of Justice as the Conflict precludes the NYAG from doing his public duty of investigating dirty rotten Public Officials, like yourself and Mr. Friedberg.

As my LAWSUIT has been marked legally “RELATED” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin to that of the First Department DDC Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson, we see that Anderson similarly is complaining that the NYAG illegal representation of State Defendants from your offices, is a Violation of the NYAG Rules and Regulations and Law, whereby you can get a gander for her position at the following URL, incorporated by reference in entirety herein @ ____________

The allegations in the FORMAL COMPLAINTS against Mr. Friedberg and yourself are replete with concrete evidence of crimes you are committing by violating the very ethics laws you and Mr. Friedberg are in charge of upholding. Conflicts like your department and several of the First Department Judges are direct defendants in a TWELVE COUNT, TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL LAWSUIT that of course, I know you are not too delusional to have reported this liability and your involvement to any state auditors, state agencies and others who have liability resulting from your continued criminal conduct.

The very fact that you attempt to ignore the conflicts and continue to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE in violation of FEDERAL and STATE CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION LAWS, ATTORNEY ETHICS CODES and more will be formally reported to your oversight and criminal authorities.

Yet, while your letter attempts to claim no conflict, almost, you failed to sign and
return the CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM attached to the
COMPLAINT. This failure serves as further evidence of your CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION through CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which now will be formulated
along with this letter, to several of your oversight authorities, as a FORMAL AFFIRMED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.

Under the laws of NEW YORK and the UNITED STATES, in the interim until authorities can arrest you for your felonious acts, I place you under CITIZENS ARREST and I advise you not only to seek independent counsel but also to turn yourself in to the proper authorities for processing for FELONY charges both state and federal.

I remind you that I have sent the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK
and FEDERAL AUTHORITIES information regarding your involvement in RICO
related crimes, along with many in your department.

Quite contrary to your claim, I do not think anyone in your CORRUPT COMMITTEE or DEPARTMENT can handle these complaints without conflict and if you are so confident in your meritorious good work on behalf of the Good People of New York, you should welcome a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY review, as certainly you have nothing to hide.

Nothing to hide but everything, including the complaint against yourself that you keep concealing, even in your recent reply trying to dismiss the FORMAL COMPLAINT
against Mr. Friedberg while failing to state that you are also complained of since February of 2009, making your handling of any complaints, including your own, not only conflicted but criminal. Your attached letter, mentions other attorneys complained of but
fails to mention that YOU sir are one of those complained of and therefore are certainly
conflicted.

II. Actions to be Taken
• Please see 78 Page Complaint Against You filed for a Second Time since
February 2009 after you concealed those complaints

• This complaint is a refilling of that complaint and submission to the
Judiciary Committee for Oversight of Your Office and pursuing criminal investigations
within their scope of power over your Department, as part of the ONGOING
INVESTIGATION BY THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ABOUT YOUR and YOUR DEPARTMENTS FAILURE IN TOTO.

• Note that we are attaching copy of a SWORN AFFIRMED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT to all of the following, including but not limited to,
o Blah
o Blah

III. Conclusion
According to Whistleblower Christine Anderson under sworn oath in a Federal
Court and many others who have come forth to expose the ongoing Whitewashing of
Complaints, your offices are alleged to be involved in criminal obstruction of official
proceedings and threatening federal witnesses.

Nice reputation for an ETHICS department but we will get to that in a moment.

Not only are your offices accused of obstructing proceedings against “Favored Law Firms and Lawyers” but further criminal Whitewashing of Complaints was also alleged in regard to Whitewashing disciplinary complaints for the US Attorney, District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney by the “Cleaner”.

The “Cleaner” aka Naomi Goldstein of your offices, so named by your former Staff Attorney, Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson your offices should be under not only internal investigation but external.

Again, solid reasons for you and your entire department’s recusal from further involvement, other than turning yourself in and getting non-conflicted counsel to represent you.

Further, and most importantly, your failure to regulate the misconducts of the lawyers in your department according to well established rules and regulations of your department, you have failed this great nation and the People of the Great State of New York in your obfuscations of regulation.

For example, had you done your job investigating Proskauer Rose for example when I first complained, your department could have saved many peoples losses in the Sir Allan Stanford affairs, where Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom ( a former SEC Enforcement Employee ) were involved in teaching employees how to lie to Federal Authorities and have been sued for the entire amount of the Ponzi losses in a Global Class Action lawsuit.

My recommendation will be for any unrecoverable losses that those VICTIMS sue you and
your department for failure to regulate and possible conspiratorial roles in the cover up of
the crimes.

Had you investigated Proskauer Rose when I first informed you of their misconducts
and crimes, you also could have prevented many people over the 7 seven years from
losing their lives savings in the Bernard Madoff affair and saved the hundreds of charities
destroyed by Madoff and lives ruined.

Yes, you are the oversight that could have prevented these calamities and are responsible for your failures to the victims. In fact, since Proskauer appears to have senior partners basically running the First Department and the Ethics Department from Steven C. Krane, a Proskauer partner caught handling his own and his firms complaints while an officer of the First Department DDC, to recently deceased DDC officer Stephen Rakowe Kaye, a Proskauer partner and married to former Chief Judge Judith Kaye who had ultimate control over the department with her husband and Krane her former clerk, no wonder complaints bounced off them into your trash can.

Yet and personally more tragic, is the fact that had you done your job regulating
the attorneys, your “favored law firms and lawyers” most likely a BOMB would not have
been placed in my family minivan ( images at www.iviewit.tv ) allowing someone to
ATTEMPT to MURDER us.

It is strange to note how the timing of that event coincided with discovery that STEVEN C. KRANE of Proskauer and Thomas Cahill ( former Chief Counsel of the DDC ) where found violating First Department DDC Rules and Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law leading to the First Department Court, in inanimous consent, transferring complaints against Krane of PROSKAUER and also a FIRST DEPARTMENT OFFICER, Krane’s Proskauer partners he was representing ILLEGALLY in complaints while a DDC OFFICER and even Krane representing himself while an officer ( sounds familiar ).

Thomas Cahill also was transferred for Special Inquiry at that time and your recent handling of that complaint, with Mr. Stephen Lamont and attempting to dismiss that complaint, again while really clever, will also be further evidence of your CRIMINAL ACTS filed with CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES.

Lest us not forget to remind those judging your actions of the fact that your
department is supposed to regulate Wall Street lawyers and we can all see what your lax
regulations have produced.

I also remind you that your department appears to be the regulator for several fine attorneys in the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel who are being accused of war crimes for their violations of ethics and law that have allowed the torture and murder of innocent untried people, quite similar to Nazi Extermination Camps where habeas rights similarly were removed by dirty rotten lawyers, who were actually criminals with legal degrees who made concentration camps and murder legal for undesirables.

I remind you of the Judges Trial so that today while you feel elevated above the law, enough so to first conceal and then attempt to dismiss complaints against yourself, in drunken and high delusions of grandeur, that one day you will be tried for these crimes as Justice is restored and even the Nazi lawyers and judges had their day in the infamous Judges Trial at the Nuremberg Trials. I await hearing your defenses from behind the glass.

Truly, and I mean this FIGURATIVELY not LITERALLY, I hope this letter feels
like a bomb in your car and you may live with your family in similar trepidation that one
day your world will end, when your scam ends and you are tried in a fair and impartial
court, free of conflict ( you know the thing your supposed to be protecting ) where
hopefully you will serve the remainder of your life contemplating the magnanimity of the
damage you have done to my family, my shareholders, those you have embroiled in your
crimes like Ms. Anderson, those victims of your crimes that appear lining up with each
new Judiciary Committee, all those who lost homes or 401k’s from lawyers schemes in
an unregulated capacity free to commit financial crimes, as the REGULATOR, YOU was
naught more than a criminal in on the crimes.

Most DisRespectfully Yours,

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
cc/ec:

Roy L. Reardon
Chairman Monday, December 14, 2009
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee

Re: YOUR CONTINUED INSANITY IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOURSELF,
ALAN W. FRIEDBERG AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN A TWELVE COUNT TWELVE
TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT LEGALLY RELATED TO A WHISTLEBLOWER
CAUSING MASS LIABILITY YOU ARE CONCEALING FROM THE STATE AND
PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM YOUR CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT
roy reardon
Iviewit Holdings , Inc.
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.


Source:
www.iviewit.tv
r
Much More on Roy L. Reardon Coming Soon.
r