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

Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Testimony at New York Senate Judiciary on Patent Corruption, Inventors Rights ...

Eliot Bernstein Testimony NY Senate Judiciary Part 1
Trillion Dollar Lawsuit, Attempted Murder, Court Corruption
Patent Attorney Corruption, and Mass Fraud on the Courts in ALL
Judicial Branches, the USPTO and Multiple Supreme Courts.



Eliot Bernstein Testimony NY Senate Judiciary Part 2
Iviewit Technologies - Eliot Bernstein Testifies on
Massive Corruption Surrounding
the Stealing of the Iviewit Technology.



More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud and Major Corruption in the
Iviewit Stolen Intellectual Property Scandal ... Go to..

www.DeniedPatent.com

www.Iviewit.TV

www.KennethRubenstein.com

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

Lockheed Martin Corruption, Foley-Lardner Corruption, Proskauer Rose Corruption, Intel Corp. Corruption, Time Warner Inc. Corruption,

MPEG LA, DVD Licensing, Toshiba - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division

More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement.Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?

June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General

" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064

Dear Mr. Ramos:

This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.

You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.

I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats

The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.

(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.

The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,

(2) established the Standard Specifications.

(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.

II. The Proposed Arrangement

A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders

(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:

(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);

(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and

(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.

(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.

(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.

(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."

(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."

(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.

(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.

(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"

(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.

(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.

(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.

(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.

(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.

(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.

(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."

(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."

(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.

(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.

(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."

(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)


Full Letter and Source of Post
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm

Save and Print the Above for Your Records.

Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY know that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.

No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.

More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://www.kennethrubenstein.com/

Christopher C. Wheeler, Matthew Triggs - Proskauer Rose Frauds the Florida Supreme Court.

Christopher Clark Wheeler - Proskauer Rose LLP Corrupt Patent Attorney, Protected by Proskauer Rose Law Firm, the Florida and New York Supreme Court.

" Take a moment to honor the original conspirator, Christopher Clark Wheeler, one of the main suspects and ringleaders of the crime who has subsequently been charged with a Felony Driving Under the Influence Charge with Injury making his credibility as an attorney further mired in crimes.

An arrest warrant was been issued in that matter, click Wheeler's picture on the left for the Delray Beach Police Department report or this link - Wheeler's arrest report or this one for the PD blotter.

So where his more serious crimes, like fraud on a whole bunch of government agencies and foreign nations now landed Iviewit and its shareholders at the United States Supreme Court to present our case for violations of public office by Chris Wheeler and Matthew Triggs, Wheeler going with this further public nuisance crime upon his head.

Christophe Wheeler, the main protagonist, the first attorney to revel the inventions and be disclosed the processes, is found recklessly endangering lives, now drunk and a true danger to himself and society.

In addition, the Petition filed by Iviewit contained allegations and evidence that linked the President of the Florida Bar and others to conflicts.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered a response to the Petition by the Florida Bar and what was set forth in response was perhaps the most incompetent legal response (Illiterate Florida Bar Response to Petition) ever by the Florida Bar, authored by Eric Turner - Chief Branch Officer, and Eric Turner completed law school.

Authored with a complaint filed against him, which should have precluded his response in conflict, yet Turner so stressed out writes a letter that is legally and intelligibly incoherent, even addressing the Florida Supreme Court improperly and this is a Chief Counsel of The Florida Bar.

For this letter alone Eric Turner should have been sent back to law school.

Turners response fails to address any of the allegations in the Petition as demanded by the SCF order and instead states that the Florida Bar review work was done well.

The problem, the review was done and included responses tendered by Matthew Triggs as attorney for his partner Wheeler, while Matthew Triggs was in a confirmed black-out period at the Florida Bar where he was unable to represent any party due to his public office position with the Florida Bar.

Iviewit filed with the SCF a rebuttal identifying the Florida Bar failure to address the questions in the Petition and asking for a default judgment and also due to Turner's response failing to properly identify parties including the SCF, Rebuttal Response.

Further, the exhibits in the illiterate response done by Eric Turner which contain the Florida Bar reviewers (no investigation was undertaken) assessment of the Wheeler complaint, are all invalid, as Wheeler's responses where all tendered by Matthew Triggs in conflict but what is interesting to note is how each reviewer attempts to claim that they found no wrong doing or that Proskauer Rose was not patent counsel.

Without any investigation, the Florida Bar is not allowed by their own rules to make any opinions in favor of either party and may only decline to undertake investigation.

Yet, the conflicts, unknown and concealed by Christopher Wheeler and Matthew Triggs had worked there magic and influenced the Florida Bar to attempt to write exculpatory language on behalf of Proskauer Rose, one wonders what the cost of buying off justice cost.

The Florida Bar acting more as a defacto attorney protection agency versus a consumer organization, where even after being caught in conflicts and violations of public office - attorneys remain not prosecuted and where citizen complaints to The Florida Bar have been denied being filed quite inapposite the intent of the Florida Constitution in creating a bar and inapposite of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.

When citizens are denied the right to complain about elected officials violating clearly established laws inapposite the rules of procedure, it is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.

Shocking but true, just look up the case and watch it as it now is up for appeal at the United States Supreme Court and there is more corruption following, this time a similar series of conflicts of interest, improprieties and abuses of public office in New York, where court ordered investigations have been derailed and other miscellaneous fodder. "

Source of Above
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm

Proskauer Rose LLP - Chris Wheeler Crimes

Exhibit 4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board

Exhibit 19 – How to steal an applet, first act, Brian invention at home is 2nd attempt after this is foiled

******

Wheeler response to The initial small form Florida Bar complaint

Iviewit rebuttal to Wheeler response to The Florida Bar #1

some wheeler perjury to florida bar goes well with dui and somehow evades detection

******

matthew triggs - florida bar complaint - florida bar and florida supreme court refuse to docket formally the complaint although it has affirmed violations of triggs public office as a member of the florida bar and conflicting his representation of wheeler. currently under review at the united states supreme court.

supreme court of florida - iviewit original filing

florida bar response to supreme court order to respond to petition

fails to deal with any substantive issues of the petition and as such stands in default. they claim to have done a good review to the supreme court and where such review contained conflicted responses from triggs, that would have invalidated the prior reviews.

response is unintelligible and addresses parties incorrectly such as (this court) when more appropriately (this Court) and other such defined term problems.

iviewit rebuttal to florida bar non-response - supreme court of florida
florida bar response - another turner classic

Of interest -- inventor Bernstein has since discovery of the inventions told of how the inventions came to be as coming in dreams as gifts from G0D to help your children save the planet. This makes the crimes even more insidious, to read of this fascinating truth of how these inventions came to be visit the inventor.


More on the Corrupt Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler
http://www.christophercwheeler.com/

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney for MPEG LA - Involves Attorney Raymond Anthony Joao.

Kenneth Rubenstein 's lackey, attorney Raymond Anthony Joao, who was a patent attorney working DIRECTLY under Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein 's direction.

Raymond Joao now claims 90 patents in his own name and Iviewit gives him kudos as the greatest slime ball inventor and patent attorney.

No really, Iviewit considers our former counselors Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein to be nothing more than co-inventors of a system and method to defraud shareholders and inventors of their inventions and commit fraud upon worldwide patent intellectual property organizations, an invention that should carry some stiff federal sentences.

Click here for a press article on the amazing inventiveness of Joao

Raymond Joao was so non-inventive that many of these patents resemble ideas and concepts lifted straight from the Iviewit business plan and invention disclosures and ideas that he was supposed to be patenting for the inventors and shareholders.

More on Raymond Joao Click Here

Source of Above and LOTS More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm


More on Iviewit Massive Shareholder Fraud

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

www.BruceSewell.com

www.iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

posthed here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Proskauer Rose LLP Elects Joseph M. Leccese as Chairman of the Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP.

Does Joseph M. Leccese Know about the Federal RICO Lawsuit that Proskauer Rose LLP is involved in over the STEALING of the Iviewit Technologies?

Does Joseph Leccese - Proskauer Rose LLP NEW Chairman KNOW about the HUGE Liability he is Taking in NOT Looking into the Kenneth Rubenstein and Illegal Patent Pooling of MPEG LA over the Iviewit Technologies ?

Joseph Leccese is in deep on this... Does Joseph Leccese know of the SEC Complaint that Proskauer Rose is involved over the Iviewit Technology?

Does Joseph Leccese KNOW about the Perjured Deposisiton of Kenneth Rubenstein Proskauer Rose LLP over the Blatant Theft of a Multi-Trillion Dollar Technology.

My Guess is that Joseph Leccese - Proskauer Rose LLP is Either CLUELESS or Corrupt .. Either way is dangerous.

Here is the Breaking NEWS on Proskauer Rose LLP, as if it's a Good Thing..

Proskauer Rose LLP has Elected Joseph M. Leccese as Chairman

Proskauer Rose LLP has elected Joseph M. Leccese as the next Chairman of Proskauer Rose LLP.

Joseph M. Leccese is said to be assuming office in January 2011.

Joseph M. Leccese is 49, is the youngest Chairman of Proskauer Rose’s 135-year history.

Joseph M. Leccese began his legal career at the firm as a summer associate, and is currently a Partner in the Corporate Department, a member of the firm’s Executive Committee, and co-head of its renowned Sports Law Group.

Joseph M. Leccese will succeed Allen I. Fagin, who has served as Proskauer's Chairman since 2005, and is completing his maximum six year term as Chairman.

This Corrupt Gibberish is Said on Allen Fagin

“Under Allen’s leadership, Proskauer Rose LLP has made significant strides building a global platform, expanding our presence in key markets, enhancing our capabilities in a number of practice areas and deftly navigating challenging economic times,” said Mr. Leccese. “I am honored and delighted to take on this role as the firm enters its next exciting chapter.”

According to Allen Fagin, Joseph M. Leccese is the right person to continue the firm’s momentum and growth to best serve its clients. This means that Joseph M. Leccese is the Right Man to keep the Legacy of Corruption Alive at Proskauer Rose LLP, and that Joseph Leccese is easily bought of... and will HIDE their Secrets..

Joseph M. Leccese will maintain his practice, represents many of the most prominent sports teams, leagues and sports lenders in a range of corporate, finance and transactional matters, including the National Basketball Association, the National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, the ATP Tour, the WTA Tour, J.P. Morgan, Citibank and Bank of America.

Ok so the Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is in Bed with the Corrupt JP Morgan, no wonder the Cozy - Cozy with George Demos who Protected JP Morgan from the SEC Fraud Charges over $300 Million Dollars...

Joseph M. Leccese also has led numerous stadium and arena developments and related project financings, including the New Meadowlands Stadium, Prudential Center, Amway Center and Lincoln Financial Field. - GOT an tips on Corruption, Conflicts of Interest ??? on Joseph M. Leccese - eMail me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Over the past six years, Proskauer Rose has opened offices in Chicago, Hong Kong, London, and São Paulo, and increased its revenues by over sixty percent. The firm recently announced plans to move its New York headquarters in early 2011 to a new, state-of-the-art building at 11 Times Square.

About Proskauer Rose LLP

Founded in 1875, Proskauer Rose is a global law firm widely recognized for its leadership in a variety of legal services provided to clients worldwide from offices in Boca Raton, Boston, Chicago, Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York, Newark, Paris, São Paulo and Washington, DC. Additional information about the firm, which has extensive experience in all areas of practice important to businesses, not-for-profit institutions and individuals.

Source information in post on
Joseph M. Leccese - Proskauer Rose LLP Post
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101004006860/en/Proskauer-Elects-Joseph-M.-Leccese-Chairman

More on Allen Fagin at
www.AllenFagin.com

More on Proskauer Rose Fraud at
http://www.proskauersucks.com/

and More To Come on Joseph M. Leccese
at http://www.josephleccese.com/

posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Perjured Deposition by Corrupt Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein - MPEG LA Corrupt Patent Pooling.

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Patent Attorney from Proskauer Rose LLP - Working with MPEG LA. Kenneth Rubenstein Perjured himself in Depositions Regarding the Iviewit Technologies Patents in Which Kenneth Rubenstein was Directly Involved in Derailing the Rightful Inventors to Getting their Rightful Patent.

MPEG LA - with the Help of Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney, Pooled the Technology in patents and well the Iviewit Inventors NEVER got rights or any compensation for the Mult-Trillion Dollar Invention that WE ALL USE.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6 - Final

www.Iviewit.TV
For More on Iviewit

www.ProskauerSucks.com
more on Proskauer Rose Corruption

http://www.kennethrubenstein.com/
more on MPEG LA Corruption and Kenneth Rubenstein
Corrupt Patent Attorney.

posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Perjured Deposition Proskauer Rose - MPEG LA for Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein

Part 1
Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition
Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein.

Kenneth Rubenstein - Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose Partner



Hear More on Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein at Eliot Bernstein's Iviewit Technologies Channel - Click Here

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

SEC Complaint AGAINST Time Warner, Warner Bros. - Jeffrey Bewkes, Curtis Lu - Massive Shareholder Fraud. Still NOT Disclosed to Shareholders.

Jeffrey Bewkes CEO of Time Warner Inc. Continues to NOT Disclose Massive Shareholder Liability over the Iviewit Stolen Technology and the Blatant NOT HONORED contracts with Time Warner Inc. and Iviewit.

Curtis Lu - Time Warner General Counsel Talks to iViewit in 2010 then Leaves Time Warner Inc. to be the General Counsel for Philip Falcones - Harbinger Capital Partner 's - Lightsquared - Click here for Curtis Lu Conversation with iViewit over the Stolen Technology, the Liability to Time Warner Inc. and More.

" 2009-2010 Recent Communications with Warner Bros et al.

The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between the prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. communications and contracts, that during the gap I was nevertheless actively pursuing my rights contrary to Smith’s claim that nothing has been done.

Factually, I have given similar information to several state, federal and international investigators, House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, many state and federal courts and more over the last several years.

During the gap in 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 homepage.

· March 17, 2009 ~ Hall and I left a message for John Rogovin (“Rogovin”) ~ Executive Vice President and General Counsel @ Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. with his assistant Ginger Tipton (“Tipton”) to arrange a business meeting to discuss the lawsuit liabilities, patent infringement liabilities, FASB NO. 5 accounting liabilities and regulatory issues that would likely result in Massive Shareholder Liabilities if not quelled, if possible.

· April 23, 2009 ~ Hall and I left a second message for Rogovin with assistant Tipton, as the March 17, 2009 call was not returned although Tipton was aware that urgent time frames were involved.

· April 28, 2009 ~ Hall and I spoke to Rogovin’s office that referred us to Smith. The referral to Smith coming despite his conflicts resulting from his previous involvement in the alleged fraud, the fact that he is a central witness in the matters and the fact that as a lawyer he has multiple legal conflicts of interest, as well as, corporate conflicts in handling the matters he is central too. Yet, these conflicts would not matter unless Smith directly handled the matters, which he then did.

· April 30, 2009 ~ Bernstein spoke to Smith’s assistant Yolanda who claimed that Smith was now tied up in litigation for two weeks and that he would get back with an answer shortly. This delay was despite pressing the need with Yolanda for urgent action on Smith’s part due to the MASSIVE Shareholder liabilities and the need for a twenty-four hour response.

· May 28, 2009 ~ Time Warner Inc. Announces Plan to Separate AOL

http://bx.businessweek.com/america-online/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedeal.com%2Fcorporatedealmaker%2F2009%2F05%2Ftime_warner_aol_timeline.php

o The SEC should note the timing of this announcement with the delays in response by Warner Bros et al.’s Smith to the Iviewit notice of IP infringement liabilities and their involvement in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit.

o The SEC should instantly ascertain if Warner Bros et al. notified Shareholders and Auditors during these corporate restructurings of the impending and absolute liabilities, to determine if Shareholders were formally noticed of the massive Twelve Count Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit liability and additional patent infringement liabilities.

Further, the SEC must determine if full disclosure by Counsel was concealed, including but not limited to, Smith and Rogovin. Finally, the question further arises of if the liabilities were properly accounted for in the Audited Financials for the separation transactions, where it does not appear to have been.

Obviously, if these material facts regarding massive liabilities were omitted from financial reporting, Shareholders would have Rescissory Rights from the securities fraud by the Officers. As evidenced in the following series of communications, not only is counsel notified and fails to disclose the liabilities but Officers, Directors and Auditors of the companies when contacted regarding the liabilities, all fail to handle the issues as fiducially required by law.

· October 07, 2009 ~ Eliot Bernstein letter to Wayne Smith regarding setting up meeting to discuss matters that could have Catastrophic effect on the Shareholders. Smith already advised by Tipton, per confirmation with Tipton, of the Time Sensitive Nature and the seriousness of the liabilities in relation to their Shareholders.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091007%20Eliot%20Bernstein%20letter%20to%20Wayne%20Smith%20re%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL%20meeting%20request.pdf

· November 23, 2009 ~ Hall spoke directly with Smith, who claimed to Hall that he was not the best person to handle the matters but that he instead was assembling a team from Warner Bros et al. to discuss the matters and would get back to Hall. Yet, instead of putting a team together, Smith continued handling the matters despite the multiple conflicts.

· November 30, 2009 ~ Hall sent a letter to Smith reviewing their call @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20091201%20Wayne%20Smith%20Fax%20Email%20Demand%20Receipt%20of%20Kevin%20Hall%20Confirmation%20Letter.pdf

· December 02, 2009 ~ Smith response to Hall request for meeting @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091202%20Wayne%20Smith%20Response%20Warner%20Bros%20to%20Iviewit%20letter%2012-2-09.pdf

o It should be noted by the SEC here, that the above linked exhibit has two attachments from February and March 2002.

Whereby, despite the previously exhibited evidence herein, including but not limited to, Signed NDA’s, Admission of Use and Violation of NDA’s by a Warner Bros. employee and a SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, the letter and the attached letters all attempt to deny these material incontestable facts, facts omitted in annual reports as well.

· December 09, 2009 ~ AOL Time Warner completes split.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/8403302.stm

· December 18, 2009 ~ Hall and Bernstein response to December 02, 2009 Warner Bros. letter @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091218%20FINAL%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Demand%20Letter36889%20SIGNED%20KRHEIB%20fax.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091218%20FINAL%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Demand%20Letter%20Cover%20Email.pdf

· December 23, 2009 ~ Warner Bros. Letter from Smith to Iviewit and Bernstein.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091223%20Warner%20Bros%20Wayne%20Smith%20to%20Bernstein%20Response.pdf

o Note that in this letter Smith claims that,

“Your time-barred claims hinge almost entirely on an internal email written by David Colter on January 15, 2002 - an email he subsequently disavowed and admitted that he had written (and improperly provided you with a copy) only as a personal favor to you.”

This statement attempts to deny that liability claims were based on Multiple Signed NDA’s, Admission of Use by Warner Employees, Admission of Violation of NDA’s by Warner Bros. employees, a SIGNED LICENSING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, correspondences and notices of an ongoing Federal Lawsuit, etc.

The SEC should not that in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit both Smith and Calkins are central witnesses and actors directly involved, again conflicting Smith’s involvement in the matter.

Note that Wayne Smith is a licensed and practicing attorney and therefore has additional conflicts of interest and ethical violations under the Attorney Conduct Code, in addition to the Corporate Conflicts of Interest in handling the matters, again where he is directly involved in the alleged crimes described herein.

· December 29, 2009 ~ Hall and I, unclear if Smith had notified Senior Executives and Auditors or concealed the matters in an attempt to bury them despite our letters demand for him to copy all companies Executives, Board, Counsel and Auditors, contacted Warner Bros et al. Officers, Directors and Auditors directly.

The first AOL Inc. spokesperson, returning our call to determine if Smith had contacted them was a one Jerry McKinley (“McKinley”) ~ Sr. Liaison of Executive Escalation at AOL Inc. calling to follow up on earlier messages to Tim Armstrong (“Armstrong”) ~ Chairman and CEO of AOL Inc. and others. A follow up letter to our call with McKinley can be found @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091231%20Jerry%20McKinley%20AOL%20Inc%20letter%20Re%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20response.pdf

o McKinley was then given critical documents expressing the urgent nature of these matters and McKinley was to get back to Hall and me instantly with confirmation that the named Executives, Officers and Auditors from the companies had received the URGENT TIME SENSITIVE documents regarding the liabilities.

McKinley then took a vacation the next day and was unavailable to answer calls despite knowing that the documents had a 24-hour period before we would be notifying the SEC and others of the liabilities, if resolution could not be achieved through sound business discussions and practices.

· December 29, 2009 ~ Hall and Bernstein calls to Time Warner Inc. and Warner Bros. executives.

o Further, I hereby complain that such recent elusive conduct involves the CEO, CFO and General Counsel at Time Warner, Inc., even hiding and dodging professional phone calls, in fact wholly ignoring them, simply to confirm messages and communications were received and seeking responsibly to address the mass of liabilities described herein.

Instead, quite shockingly, both Hall and I were intentionally passed along to extensions whereby the employees refused to give their names and several times just hung up on us.

Then, unidentified employees transferred us to Security personnel, personnel who would claim to be proper members of the company to receive and deliver messages to the Senior Executives regarding the massive potential Shareholder liabilities, yet they too would offer no confirmation of the delivery of the matters to the Executives and several refused to give their proper names or oversight.

o Security for Time Warner instead then took messages with a promise only to deliver the message and since there has been absolutely no call back from Senior Management, Counsel, Outside Counsel or an Auditor since those calls, we presume that avoidance equals concealment.

This stands as additional cause for the SEC to investigate and find out more information regarding the failure to return these calls and address liabilities properly by either Officers, Directors, Auditors, Outside Counsel, etc. and further determine if they have reported the liabilities their offices have been notified about to Auditors and Shareholders.

· January 06, 2010 ~ Phone conversation with Day

o Most amazingly, Wednesday Jan. 6, 2010, I had a Direct Phone conversation with Christopher Day (“Day”) who claimed to be an Assistant General Counsel at AOL, Inc.

The call also involved my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq. Mr. Day was calling back after Hall and I left urgent voicemails for AOL CEO & COB Armstrong, after McKinley failed to return calls as promised. Mr. Day apparently is also Licensing and Patent counsel for AOL Inc., yet it was unclear on whose behalf Day was acting, as we had left messages for several key officers, including Armstrong and General Counsel Ira Parker (“Parker”) and Day refused to tell us.

o Day also refused to tell us not only who sent him the information and gave him orders to call us back but also refused to disclose what documentation he was mysteriously and anonymously sent and referring to, making it impossible to even confirm the documents he referenced receiving.

o This was most bizarre conduct from an alleged Assistant General Counsel who refused to describe how, who or why the documents and business matters came to him. Yet, it appeared that Day was returning my calls to CEO Armstrong at AOL and stated that he was a direct report to the key management persons we were attempting to reach and assuming liability for the matters.

o Efforts to avoid the liabilities involve actual dodging and hiding by Senior Executives, Officers and Directors from these matters, including but not limited to, the brand new CEO Armstrong and General Counsel at AOL Inc., Parker.

Upon leaving messages for Ira Parker, his assistant returned the call and stated that Parker was on vacation, could not be disturbed despite the PRIORITY situation and would return the call upon his return.

As of this date, I have received no call back from Parker; perhaps he is on extended vacation.

· January 07, 2010 ~ Letter out to AOL Management Regarding Evasive Tactics of Management from Shareholder Liabilities.

o Sent to: Tim Armstrong ~ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer @ AOL Inc. ( tim.armstrong@corp.aol.com ); Artie Minson ~ Chief Financial Officer @ AOL Inc. ( arthur.minson@corp.aol.com ); Jerry McKinley @ AOL Inc. ( mackinleyj@aol.com ); Ira Parker ~ General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development @ AOL Inc ( ira.parker@corp.aol.com ); Christopher Day ~ Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing @ AOL Inc ( christopherday@corp.aol.com )

January 07, 2010 Letter to CEO, Armstrong at AOL Inc. @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100110%20Kevin%20Hall%20Letter%20sent%20to%20Tim%20Armstrong%20AOL%20re%20Christopher%20Day%20calls%20to%20eib.pdf

· January 08, 2010 ~ Additional Offer made to AOL Inc. CEO Armstrong thru Assistant General Counsel Christopher Day and Summarizing Notes of Jan. 6, 2010 conversation @

January 08, 2010 Letter of Hall to Bernstein copied to Tim Armstrong, CEO at AOL Inc. and others.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100108%20Letter%20to%20Tim%20Armstrong%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

· January 2010 ~ Calls were again placed to CEO Armstrong and Day by Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein’s Counsel, Marc R. Garber, Esq. (“Garber”) of Flaster Greenberg PC (“Flaster”), Kevin Hall, Esq. and Eliot Bernstein. Counsel Garber left the messages with his personal and business phone numbers for AOL Counsel, Officers, Directors or Auditors to return his call.

Again, not even a return call from AOL to Iviewit Counsel Garber, whereby the failure of Warner Bros. et al. to return calls to our Counsel should send additional red flags to the SEC.

This failure to return calls to Counsel Garber by Warner Bros. et al. counsel and executives regarding matters as serious as this to Shareholders is unheard of, indicating further cause for the SEC to investigate all named parties herein and in the attached Exhibit 1. Investigations by the SEC should include all personal and corporate stock transactions from1999 to Present for all of these executives, including the recent corporate splits.

o Counsel Garber of Flaster left messages with both Armstrong and Day, giving them both a chance to return the calls, as it was already established that Armstrong had direct actual and constructive receipt of correspondences via email and therefore direct knowledge of the impending liabilities to AOL, Inc.

The calls to contact Counsel Garber were not returned as of this date, leading to the filing of this Formal Complaint against Warner Bros et al. The failure of Warner Bros et al. to resolve the issues through sound business discussions and licensing of the technologies with the true and proper inventors, and in fact, instead exhibiting a continued pattern attempting to conceal the liabilities from Shareholders and others with potential liabilities, through establishing materially false record of fact, while transacting volumes of individual and corporate securities, prompted this action to the SEC and others addressed herein.

The timeline and supplementary evidence herein should establish for the SEC and others addressed herein that Smith’s recent claim in his December 23, 2009 communication, already exhibited herein, claiming, “Your time-barred claims hinge almost entirely on an internal email written by David Colter on January 15, 2002 - an email he subsequently disavowed and admitted that he had written (and improperly provided you with a copy) only as a personal favor to you” is both False and Misleading.

False and Misleading in light of the substantial evidence refuting this claim presented and exhibited herein regarding the Binding Contractual relations between Warner Bros et al. and Iviewit. Smith’s statements attempt to dismiss the liabilities as based on a single letter from a Warner Bros. employee and that the claims are somehow time barred.

The SEC and other investigators addressed herein however are presented with a far more complete and truthful picture of the long and contractual relationship between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al.

A relationship based on thousands of pages of documented evidence and legal binding contracts, many with Smith center stage.

The need to DENY the extensively documented and binding contractual relationship that Smith is aware of obviously is an effort to cover up why he and Warner Bros et al. have failed properly to report to Shareholders, Regulators and Auditors these material facts.

Facts that will likely result in Catastrophic Liabilities triggering Rescissory Rights of Shareholders due to fraud, concealment, securities fraud and other violations of law.

The SEC should also note that there are no time-barred claims on patent infringement, especially where the patents remain suspended by the US Patent Office and that the matter of time for Iviewit to file actions for infringement will remain open for Twenty years from the time the patents issue and from time of filing in 1998-2001. "

Source and Full SEC Complaint Against Curtis Lu, Time Warner Inc., Warner Bros., AOL, Intel Corp., Proskauer Rose LLP, MPEG LA and More Click Here.

What Really Collapsed Enron? Well it was a Proskauer Rose Law Firm Scandal, a Foiled Patent Theft. Proskauer Rose Law Attorney Corruption.

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

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...

Top Judge Sets Liberal Course for New York - Jonathan Lippman - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose LLP - Iviewit Technologies - Connections and Affiliations

"" Gov. David A. Paterson nominated Jonathan Lippman to head the New York Court of Appeals in January 2009, making him the chief judge of the state.

The choice was a gamble: The judge, a longtime court administrator, did not have a long history of deciding cases, and there was almost no record of his political views.

Judge Jonathan Lippman has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

Now, a year in, the parameters of the Lippman court are coming into focus. He has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

To get the rulings he wants, the decisions show, the new chief judge has built alliances case by case with each of the four judges who were nominated by the last Republican governor, George E. Pataki, cracking the conservative majority.

The changes to the culture of the court, New York’s highest — which has sometimes been one of the most influential state courts in the country — are especially striking when Chief Judge Lippman’s approach is compared with the judicial style of his predecessor, Judith S. Kaye. She had prized unanimity.

In the past year, the court has issued a series of sharply divided decisions that have been surprising from a judicial body with a clear 4-to-3 conservative majority. They have included decisions favoring criminal defendants and injured workers, expanding environmental challenges and extolling individual rights against the police.

“The message he is sending is he doesn’t mind fighting for a much more progressive direction at the court,” Vincent M. Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who studies the court, said of Judge Lippman.

Though fiscal and political problems have plagued Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, Judge Lippman’s nomination may be one of his most enduring accomplishments in shaping policy. Judge Lippman, 64, does not reach mandatory retirement age until 2015.

Noting that the Supreme Court had yet to rule on questions presented by Global Positioning Systems, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that the State Constitution barred the police from placing GPS tracking devices on cars without a warrant.

A different Republican judge joined the three Democratic appointees in another divided ruling, this one striking down a youth curfew in Rochester as unconstitutional, though other courts around the country have approved such laws.

The Lippman court has also shifted ground on worker injury suits, saying that in the past the court too rigidly limited some of them. It has also signaled a new interest in arguments from criminal defendants, sharply increasing, at Judge Lippman’s urging, the number of appeals it is considering.
In an interview, Judge Lippman acknowledged that he had a different approach from that of Judge Kaye, a longtime collaborator in running the courts.

She was also nominated by a Democrat, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, but during her nearly 16 years as chief judge, she often worked for unified rulings.

“I am a result-oriented person,” Judge Lippman said, “and the result I am looking for is not necessarily unanimity.”

According to the court, unanimous rulings declined from about 82 percent during 2008, Judge Kaye’s final year, to 69 percent in Judge Lippman’s first year.

During Judge Kaye’s tenure, the court became more conservative partly because of the arrival of the four Pataki judges. Professor Bonventre, the Albany Law School expert, said that divided decisions became more common in Judge Kaye’s final years but that dissents increased further after Judge Lippman arrived.

The rulings indicate that on occasion, Judge Lippman has tailored his arguments to attract one of the four Pataki judges.

In a decision he wrote in September, the court waded into politics by overruling two lower courts that had said Mr. Paterson’s appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was unlawful.

That view, Judge Lippman wrote, would “frustrate the work of the executive branch.”
It was an argument that seemed crafted to appeal to Judge Susan P. Read, a staunch conservative but a former top legal adviser to Governor Pataki, who was not shy about exerting executive authority. It was a party-line vote, except that Judge Read broke with the other Pataki appointees.

In the environmental case, Judge Lippman and the other two Democratic appointees aligned with two of the Republican-appointed judges, Victoria A. Graffeo, a onetime Republican legislative lawyer, and Robert S. Smith, who had sometimes expressed libertarian views.
The decision, written by Judge Smith, appeared to involve tradeoffs.

It tartly noted that the suit sought to kill a proposed hotel to protect obscure species, the Eastern spadefoot toad and the worm snake.

The hotel got a green light. But in the process, the case gave environmentalists one of their most important court victories in New York in nearly 20 years. The majority said a 1991 ruling of the court had been too narrowly applied to limit those who could bring such suits to immediate neighbors.

Stephen F. Downs, the lawyer for Save the Pine Bush, the Albany group that brought the suit, said someone on the bench seemed to be paying for an environmental victory with a defeat for the spadefoot toad. “My impression,” Mr. Downs said, “was there was a certain amount of horse trading that went on.”

That would be vintage Lippman, people who know him say. He was a get-things-done administrator, said a retired judge, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, who has known him throughout his 38-year legal career. ""

Source of Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18lippman.html

New York Court Corruption, Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest. Time for Accountability in the New York Courts. Time Whistleblowers were heard and time Proskauer Rose to be accountable for their actions. The Iviewit Stolen Patent Case has many players, however Proskauer Rose is the Patent Attorney that STOLE the Trillion Dollar Patent and Judge Judith Kaye and Her Connections to Proskauer Rose through her Husband.. Stephen Kaye made a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft such as the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent, seem like a Simple "Standard of Practice"...

Pay Attention Folks as more Unfolds on the Connections, Cronism and Conflicts of Interest of Proskauer Rose LLP - Ex-Judge Judith Kaye, Andrew Cuomo ( whose Father Appointed Judith Kaye) and how this all relates to court corruption in New York...

posted here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV