"QUESTION(S) PRESENTED
1. Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioners' constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution when all other legal remedies instituted to protect such rights at the state level, such as access to the courts, due process and procedure and others, have all been usurped Petitioner by dubious methods employed by members of the system designed to protect such rights?
2. Does this Court have the power to intercede on behalf of Petitioner when the state courts and their self regulated attorney disciplinary system has been infiltrated and corrupted so as to turn the traditional mechanisms of protection for Petitioners' rights, against Petitioners' rights, by those charged with upholding such rights?
3. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification?
4. Did the Florida Supreme Court not only err in decisions but in fact take actions to aid and abet members of that court and its disciplinary agencies and agents from escaping prosecution of violations of public office and conflicts of interests?
5. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in denying the petition for relief and did it also err in failing to provide an opinion or explanation?
6. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in refusing Petitioner's request for conflict of interest checks prior to considering the original petition?
7. Did the Florida Supreme Court err in failing to seek Judicial Qualifications Commission approval as requested by Petitioner prior to the ruling on the motion for rehearing, clarification and certification, in evaluating if their order to destroy the records pertinent to conflicts of interests and violation of public offices of its members, prior to record retention policies, was an attempt to obstruct due process and procedure in effort to aid and abet its members caught in conflict and does this Court have power to levy such charges against them?
8. Does the order to destroy the work product files of The Florida Bar and only return Petitioner filings to Petitioner constitute the basis for charges of obstruction of justice by this Court, as that courts efforts were designed to deny this Court all the facts and evidence in the matters now before this Court?
9. Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to report the conflicts of interest, violations of public offices at The Florida Bar they oversight, asserted and confirmed conflicts of interests, to the proper authorities?
10. Does the failure to report constitute basis for charges by this Court against that court for failure to uphold justice and follow state law and procedure?
11. Was the Florida Supreme Court obligated to review the merits of attorney misconduct pursuant to their exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and discipline attorneys in the state of Florida?
12. Did the Florida Supreme Court err and further act as accomplice by not allowing Petitioners' complaints to be filed against public office members of Respondent caught in conflict of interest and abuse of public office?
Is such refusal of complaints against public officers against the intent of the Florida and United State constitutions when creating a complaint process to protect the public's interest from conflict of interests and abuses of public offices?
13. Did the Florida Supreme Court fail to follow judicial cannons and attorney conduct codes, in its refusal to make disclosed conflicts of interest at the Florida Supreme Court, and at the Florida civil court.
14. Should this Court take a leading role in establishing oversight to the administration of justice in the matters where the state supreme courts of the states having traditional jurisdiction are now in an adversarial role with Petitioner to block access to the legal and enforcement agencies of those states.
LIST OF PARTIES
[X] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows:
Iviewit Technologies, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown
Iviewit Holdings, Inc., any and all affiliates both known and unknown
The Florida Bar
Christopher C. Wheeler
Matthew Triggs
Eric Turner
Lorraine Hoffman
Kelly Overstreet Johnson
Joy Bartmon
Kenneth Marvin
John Anthony Boggs "
Source of Post and Tons more Documents and Details.
http://www.iviewit.tv/supreme%20court/index.htm
Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Florida Supreme Court Corruption, Judicial Corruption.
Showing posts with label Eliot I. Bernstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eliot I. Bernstein. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Where there is Billions Lost by Investors and Trillion Dollar Patent Thefts, there is Proskauer Rose LLP and the US Second Circuit Court.
US Second Circuit Court Seems to Ignore Emergency Request
to Investigate Proskauer Rose LLP.
Information from March 2009 included in Eliot Bernstein's Complaint to the SEC On Proskauer Rose... Time Warner, Warner Bros., Intel Corp, SGI, Lockheed Martin and More...
Was anyone listening to Eliot I. Bernstein? Or was the Madoff Liquidation of Assets just simply another layer to an already corruption Multi-Billion Dollar investment scheme...
From Eliot Bernstein's Blog on his SEC Complaint listing Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner, Ernst Young, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin and explaining a whole lot more about the names and players of the Trillion Dollar Stolen Iviewit Patent, and the Involvement and Cover Ups for and by Proskauer Rose LLP - Meg Law Firm.
" " March 02, 2009 “EMERGENCY MOTION TO INVESTIGATE PROSKAUER ROSE DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEN STANFORD FINANCIAL, THE BERNARD MADOFF AND THE MARC DRIER FRAUD SCANDALS.
REMOVE PROSKAUER FROM SELF REPRESENTATION IN THESE MATTERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE FBI REMOVES THEM FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STANFORD FINANCIAL FRAUD”
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf
I filed Motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and US District Court, already exhibited herein, with similar claims of regulatory failures of the prior Presidential administration. Failures allegedly directly related to the Madoff case and I have reported this to Federal Authorities.
The Motions also discuss Conflicts centering on the Madoff saga where Proskauer publicly identified their firm as having the most clients in the Madoff Ponzi and now it is revealed in the press that many Madoff clients are the subject of ongoing SEC investigations.
The Motion at the US Second Circuit is to Compel that court to address the Conflicts of Interest and other matters according to law, laws being ignored while the Court and the Defendants perpetuate never ending Conflicts and Crimes. Note here that the handling of the Madoff Ponzi is by the same courts handling my RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and that the same courts were notified for months of the correlations between the Madoff Ponzi and my Lawsuit and have failed to notify the proper authorities, including the SEC and instead attempted to bury my lawsuit and motions.
The SEC should further note that in the courts handling my Lawsuit, many of the judges and clerks are also Defendants in the Lawsuit and despite the obvious conflicts, they continue to handle the matters, as if no rules or laws apply to them.
These illegal actions by members of the courts should also be cause for the SEC, FBI and others addressed herein to investigate the members of the courts involved for possible collusion and aiding and abetting these schemes through Fraud on the Courts.
Following this Formal Complaint, for the courts failures to address the conflicts and misprision of a felony, the three Second Circuit Judges involved in my appeal will be filed on for Criminal Obstruction and other crimes, as exhibited already in the Motion to Compel.
The SEC should note here that the US Second Circuit has recently attempted to evade the Motion to Compel, by attempting to dismiss the Appeal as baseless, while the related Whistleblower case remains ongoing.
Sneaky as it sounds, by dismissing the case, the court has evaded addressing the criminal charges levied against them and the request for oversight of their criminal actions, as set forth in the Motion to Compel. This brilliant but failed attempt to evade the Motion to Compel, without having to rule on their conflicts or answer the charges against them, despite factual and material conflicts of interests in the court, further evidences their continued criminal obstruction.
All those addressed herein, should therefore immediately begin investigation of the Second Circuit and US District Court for the Southern District of New York court officials involved. Especially concerning their concealment from authorities of these material facts relating to these Schemes, again which may be a Misprision of Felony and whereby had the courts acted within law they could have prevented injury to many victims in these Schemes years earlier, when I initially reported Proskauer’s misdeeds to them.
This information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Madoff Scheme in light of this new evidence. All asset sales and other distributions should instantly be halted until these material facts can be reviewed to determine if these funds are also relating to the Iviewit stolen patents. " "
Click here for Source of this Post and the Entire SEC Complaint
Wake Up Mary Schapiro - this is and has been a Financial EMERGENCY for a VERY long time..
Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
If you have any information on Proskauer Rose's further involvement in the Standford Affair, the Madoff Scheme or any dirty deeds or favors owed that would make it so that Proskauer Rose LLP can seem to hold no accountability for Billions of Dollars of Shareholder Loss... Please Email Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox at Crystal@CrytalCox.com
blog
crystal cox
to Investigate Proskauer Rose LLP.
Information from March 2009 included in Eliot Bernstein's Complaint to the SEC On Proskauer Rose... Time Warner, Warner Bros., Intel Corp, SGI, Lockheed Martin and More...
Was anyone listening to Eliot I. Bernstein? Or was the Madoff Liquidation of Assets just simply another layer to an already corruption Multi-Billion Dollar investment scheme...
From Eliot Bernstein's Blog on his SEC Complaint listing Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner, Ernst Young, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin and explaining a whole lot more about the names and players of the Trillion Dollar Stolen Iviewit Patent, and the Involvement and Cover Ups for and by Proskauer Rose LLP - Meg Law Firm.
" " March 02, 2009 “EMERGENCY MOTION TO INVESTIGATE PROSKAUER ROSE DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEN STANFORD FINANCIAL, THE BERNARD MADOFF AND THE MARC DRIER FRAUD SCANDALS.
REMOVE PROSKAUER FROM SELF REPRESENTATION IN THESE MATTERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE FBI REMOVES THEM FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STANFORD FINANCIAL FRAUD”
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf
I filed Motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and US District Court, already exhibited herein, with similar claims of regulatory failures of the prior Presidential administration. Failures allegedly directly related to the Madoff case and I have reported this to Federal Authorities.
The Motions also discuss Conflicts centering on the Madoff saga where Proskauer publicly identified their firm as having the most clients in the Madoff Ponzi and now it is revealed in the press that many Madoff clients are the subject of ongoing SEC investigations.
The Motion at the US Second Circuit is to Compel that court to address the Conflicts of Interest and other matters according to law, laws being ignored while the Court and the Defendants perpetuate never ending Conflicts and Crimes. Note here that the handling of the Madoff Ponzi is by the same courts handling my RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and that the same courts were notified for months of the correlations between the Madoff Ponzi and my Lawsuit and have failed to notify the proper authorities, including the SEC and instead attempted to bury my lawsuit and motions.
The SEC should further note that in the courts handling my Lawsuit, many of the judges and clerks are also Defendants in the Lawsuit and despite the obvious conflicts, they continue to handle the matters, as if no rules or laws apply to them.
These illegal actions by members of the courts should also be cause for the SEC, FBI and others addressed herein to investigate the members of the courts involved for possible collusion and aiding and abetting these schemes through Fraud on the Courts.
Following this Formal Complaint, for the courts failures to address the conflicts and misprision of a felony, the three Second Circuit Judges involved in my appeal will be filed on for Criminal Obstruction and other crimes, as exhibited already in the Motion to Compel.
The SEC should note here that the US Second Circuit has recently attempted to evade the Motion to Compel, by attempting to dismiss the Appeal as baseless, while the related Whistleblower case remains ongoing.
Sneaky as it sounds, by dismissing the case, the court has evaded addressing the criminal charges levied against them and the request for oversight of their criminal actions, as set forth in the Motion to Compel. This brilliant but failed attempt to evade the Motion to Compel, without having to rule on their conflicts or answer the charges against them, despite factual and material conflicts of interests in the court, further evidences their continued criminal obstruction.
All those addressed herein, should therefore immediately begin investigation of the Second Circuit and US District Court for the Southern District of New York court officials involved. Especially concerning their concealment from authorities of these material facts relating to these Schemes, again which may be a Misprision of Felony and whereby had the courts acted within law they could have prevented injury to many victims in these Schemes years earlier, when I initially reported Proskauer’s misdeeds to them.
This information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Madoff Scheme in light of this new evidence. All asset sales and other distributions should instantly be halted until these material facts can be reviewed to determine if these funds are also relating to the Iviewit stolen patents. " "
Click here for Source of this Post and the Entire SEC Complaint
Wake Up Mary Schapiro - this is and has been a Financial EMERGENCY for a VERY long time..
Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
If you have any information on Proskauer Rose's further involvement in the Standford Affair, the Madoff Scheme or any dirty deeds or favors owed that would make it so that Proskauer Rose LLP can seem to hold no accountability for Billions of Dollars of Shareholder Loss... Please Email Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox at Crystal@CrytalCox.com
blog
crystal cox
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Eliot Bernstein - Iviewit Technologies Reporting Stephen Lamont to the New York Attorney General
on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
To Steven Michael Cohen
Counselor and Chief of Staff
New York Attorney General
Dated: June 18th, 2009
Re: First Department Obstruction of Justice
Letter to Steven M. Cohen, NYAG
From Eliot I. Bernstein Founder and Inventor
I~view~it Technologies, INC
I~view~it Holdings,Inc
This Letter is About Obstruction of Justice, Conflicts of Interest and More.. This Letter to the NYAG also includes information on Eliot Bernstein, Founder and One of the Inventors of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. - Complaining to the NYAG that Stephen Lamont has been requested to cease making representations of behalf of Iviewit and its Share Holders... Read FULL Document Below - and Decide the Truth for Yourself.
Click Here for Document
Counselor and Chief of Staff
New York Attorney General
Dated: June 18th, 2009
Re: First Department Obstruction of Justice
Letter to Steven M. Cohen, NYAG
From Eliot I. Bernstein Founder and Inventor
I~view~it Technologies, INC
I~view~it Holdings,Inc
This Letter is About Obstruction of Justice, Conflicts of Interest and More.. This Letter to the NYAG also includes information on Eliot Bernstein, Founder and One of the Inventors of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. - Complaining to the NYAG that Stephen Lamont has been requested to cease making representations of behalf of Iviewit and its Share Holders... Read FULL Document Below - and Decide the Truth for Yourself.
Click Here for Document
posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Industry Whistleblower
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
Friday, February 5, 2010
P. Stephen Lamont sent Me this Email on Secret Plans, Eliot Bernstein's Blood Pressure, Theft accusation and more...
So P. Stephen Lamonts puts the
www.Iviewit.TV in the signature
of his Email, Why?
To me it says that the Iviewit site is a source for more information on the Email Author, however the Iviewit Site says that P. Stephen Lamont is a ForMer CEO of the Iviewit Company, seemingly in P. Stephen Lamont's Own Words.
You will See in the Email below to Me and Many others from P. Stephen Lamont that is Acting on Behalf of the Iviewit Company, I have no Proof as to if he has authority to do so or not. I am simply a blogger and linking to my Source.
You will also See in the Email below to Me and Many others from P. Stephen Lamont - that
P. Stephen Lamont is claiming to still be the Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Technologies, Inc., and that P. Stephen Lamont is accusing Eliot Bernstein of Theft, Why?
Read the Email Below, Mix that With all the information on www.DeniedPatent.com and on www.Iviewit.TV and Decide what to Believe is Fact for YOURSELF.
Here is the Email from P. Stephen Lamont sent to me and Many Other... Does this Sound Factual and Professional to You? There are other emails below about the Iviewit Shares and the Iviewit Company and it says that the Email is Proprietary, Yet this many I have NEVER met sent it to me... and I feel that the Shareholders of Sony, Intel, Iviewit, Warner Brothers and more have a right to know what is going on...
Says I am Prohibited from Sharing this Proprietary information if it was not intended for me. . yet P. Stephen Lamont sent it Directly TO me..
"Lol, lol…get this man some blood pressure medicine, SOON. When viewing the rational email lineage below between CEO Lamont and shareholder Brett Howard (scroll all the way down), how foolish does Bernstein, and those aligned with him, if anyone, how foolish does he look now?
BTW, it was Mr. Howard’s $50k investment that Bernstein, among others, pocketed between 2002 and the time of the Bernstein Tapes in 2004…who’s kidding whom?
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont; http://www.iviewit.tv/
THIS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL,PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.
IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THIS MAIL AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES. PLEASE DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT 914-217-0038.
IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM FORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SENDER.
Stephen,
Thanks for the insight. I vote for plan “B”, if it’s a viable option.
Thanks again,
Brett
ANDERSON HOWARD
Keeping Your Business LIVE™
Brett Howard Vice President & COO
bretth@aandh.com
T 949.250.4555 ext. 333
F 949.250.1918
C 714.231.78181791
Reynolds Ave.Irvine, CA 92614-5711
From: P. Stephen Lamont [mailto:pstephen.lamont@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:51 AMTo: Brett HowardSubject: RE: Iviewit Shareholder Vote: Response Required
Brett,
Nice to hear from you. I’ve been told that the US Supreme Court is interested in corruption cases, but their bread and butter cases are where there are conflicting rulings by Circuit Courts or issues of major constitutional importance (I e., Roe v. Wade, etc., not these issues), and, even then, they only take a very, very, very small percentage of cases filed. Waiting for the criminal side to act is totally out of anyone’s control, but the FBI and United States Attorneys.
It is my hope that Plan B comes to fruition (when I can divulge I immediately will), and I will wait for additional responses to come in, and let everyone know the results.
Looking at our Final Version 10 cap table as I have had to do recently, I value (just my gut feel) Iviewit at $2.5 billion today, and your 129 shares work out to roughly $2.5 million today, so it is an important decision to make. I will be back in touch.
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont; http://www.iviewit.tv/
THIS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL,PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THIS MAIL AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES. PLEASE DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT 914-217-0038. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM FORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SENDER.
From: Brett Howard [mailto:Bretth@aandh.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:34 PMTo: pstephen.lamont@verizon.netSubject:
RE: Iviewit Shareholder Vote: Response Required
Stephen,
You’re closer to the heart of this thing than anyone else. What do you believe is the best course of action?
Best regards,
Brett
ANDERSON HOWARD
Keeping Your Business LIVE™
Brett Howard Vice President & COO
bretth@aandh.com
T 949.250.4555 ext. 333
F 949.250.1918
C 714.231.78181791 Reynolds Ave.
Irvine, CA 92614-5711
......
Iviewit Shareholder Vote: Response Required
Importance: High
The going forward options presently are:
1. Press onto the U.S. Supreme Court;
2. Await the coming of Plan B (currently operating in stealth mode);
3. Sit tight and wait for the criminal side to act (default option).
Discretion of CEO remains, but responses are due by Wednesday, February 17, 2010; no responses default to option 3.
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont; http://www.iviewit.tv/ ""
Secret Options, School Yard Bullying and Slams, Speculated Company worth of a company you do not own.... Is this Slander against the Iviewit Company... What is Really Going On...
You have a Right To Know...
Why is a Secret Stealth Plan B Needed ?
The Truth is the TRUTH.
The Facts, the Court Documents, the Agreements with Warner Brothers and Sony, the Correspondence with Intel - Bruce Swell and all those involved in this Stolen Patent Case ... well their is lots of documents, evidence and proof and I have faith that some Honest Judge, Honest Attorney, and Honest Court Somewhere will do the right thing and that Stealth, Secrets... and whatever the Plan B is .. well that is not necessary.. Does make you curious what plan B is and if it is LEGAL?
Crystal L. Cox
Truth Seeker
Industry Whistleblower
Crystal Cox
www.Iviewit.TV in the signature
of his Email, Why?
To me it says that the Iviewit site is a source for more information on the Email Author, however the Iviewit Site says that P. Stephen Lamont is a ForMer CEO of the Iviewit Company, seemingly in P. Stephen Lamont's Own Words.
You will See in the Email below to Me and Many others from P. Stephen Lamont that is Acting on Behalf of the Iviewit Company, I have no Proof as to if he has authority to do so or not. I am simply a blogger and linking to my Source.
You will also See in the Email below to Me and Many others from P. Stephen Lamont - that
P. Stephen Lamont is claiming to still be the Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Technologies, Inc., and that P. Stephen Lamont is accusing Eliot Bernstein of Theft, Why?
Read the Email Below, Mix that With all the information on www.DeniedPatent.com and on www.Iviewit.TV and Decide what to Believe is Fact for YOURSELF.
Here is the Email from P. Stephen Lamont sent to me and Many Other... Does this Sound Factual and Professional to You? There are other emails below about the Iviewit Shares and the Iviewit Company and it says that the Email is Proprietary, Yet this many I have NEVER met sent it to me... and I feel that the Shareholders of Sony, Intel, Iviewit, Warner Brothers and more have a right to know what is going on...
Says I am Prohibited from Sharing this Proprietary information if it was not intended for me. . yet P. Stephen Lamont sent it Directly TO me..
******
"Lol, lol…get this man some blood pressure medicine, SOON. When viewing the rational email lineage below between CEO Lamont and shareholder Brett Howard (scroll all the way down), how foolish does Bernstein, and those aligned with him, if anyone, how foolish does he look now?
BTW, it was Mr. Howard’s $50k investment that Bernstein, among others, pocketed between 2002 and the time of the Bernstein Tapes in 2004…who’s kidding whom?
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont; http://www.iviewit.tv/
THIS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL,PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.
IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THIS MAIL AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES. PLEASE DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT 914-217-0038.
IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM FORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SENDER.
Stephen,
Thanks for the insight. I vote for plan “B”, if it’s a viable option.
Thanks again,
Brett
ANDERSON HOWARD
Keeping Your Business LIVE™
Brett Howard Vice President & COO
bretth@aandh.com
T 949.250.4555 ext. 333
F 949.250.1918
C 714.231.78181791
Reynolds Ave.Irvine, CA 92614-5711
From: P. Stephen Lamont [mailto:pstephen.lamont@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:51 AMTo: Brett HowardSubject: RE: Iviewit Shareholder Vote: Response Required
Brett,
Nice to hear from you. I’ve been told that the US Supreme Court is interested in corruption cases, but their bread and butter cases are where there are conflicting rulings by Circuit Courts or issues of major constitutional importance (I e., Roe v. Wade, etc., not these issues), and, even then, they only take a very, very, very small percentage of cases filed. Waiting for the criminal side to act is totally out of anyone’s control, but the FBI and United States Attorneys.
It is my hope that Plan B comes to fruition (when I can divulge I immediately will), and I will wait for additional responses to come in, and let everyone know the results.
Looking at our Final Version 10 cap table as I have had to do recently, I value (just my gut feel) Iviewit at $2.5 billion today, and your 129 shares work out to roughly $2.5 million today, so it is an important decision to make. I will be back in touch.
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont; http://www.iviewit.tv/
THIS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN BY REFERENCE CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL,PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THIS MAIL AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES. PLEASE DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT 914-217-0038. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROM FORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SENDER.
From: Brett Howard [mailto:Bretth@aandh.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:34 PMTo: pstephen.lamont@verizon.netSubject:
RE: Iviewit Shareholder Vote: Response Required
Stephen,
You’re closer to the heart of this thing than anyone else. What do you believe is the best course of action?
Best regards,
Brett
ANDERSON HOWARD
Keeping Your Business LIVE™
Brett Howard Vice President & COO
bretth@aandh.com
T 949.250.4555 ext. 333
F 949.250.1918
C 714.231.78181791 Reynolds Ave.
Irvine, CA 92614-5711
......
Iviewit Shareholder Vote: Response Required
Importance: High
The going forward options presently are:
1. Press onto the U.S. Supreme Court;
2. Await the coming of Plan B (currently operating in stealth mode);
3. Sit tight and wait for the criminal side to act (default option).
Discretion of CEO remains, but responses are due by Wednesday, February 17, 2010; no responses default to option 3.
Best regards,
P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont; http://www.iviewit.tv/ ""
Secret Options, School Yard Bullying and Slams, Speculated Company worth of a company you do not own.... Is this Slander against the Iviewit Company... What is Really Going On...
You have a Right To Know...
Why is a Secret Stealth Plan B Needed ?
The Truth is the TRUTH.
The Facts, the Court Documents, the Agreements with Warner Brothers and Sony, the Correspondence with Intel - Bruce Swell and all those involved in this Stolen Patent Case ... well their is lots of documents, evidence and proof and I have faith that some Honest Judge, Honest Attorney, and Honest Court Somewhere will do the right thing and that Stealth, Secrets... and whatever the Plan B is .. well that is not necessary.. Does make you curious what plan B is and if it is LEGAL?
Crystal L. Cox
Truth Seeker
Industry Whistleblower
Crystal Cox
Friday, January 1, 2010
Eliot I. Bernstein - Intel Corporation - SEC Enforcement - Mary Shapiro - SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION
More Web Archives I have Found on "Eliot I. Bernstein - Intel Corporation" "Iviewit and Intel"
"From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro
SEC Office of Chief Accountant
SEC Office of International Affairs
SEC Office of International Enforcement Assistance
SEC Division of Enforcement
SEC Office of Internet Enforcement
SEC Division of Corporate Finance
SEC Division of Corporate Finance Chief Accountant's Office ( CF-OCA )
Federal Bureau of Investigation – White Collar Crime Unit
Complaint by Letter:
SEC Complaint Center
100 F Street NE,
Washington, D.C. 20549-0213
Complaint by Telefax: 703-813-6965
Complaint by Email: enforcement@sec.gov
Re: Complaint - Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar
Fraud on Intel Shareholders and Others
Intel Corporate Mailing Address
2200 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
Intel Phone Numbers as of March 23, 2009:
(408) 765-8080 MAIN NUMBER (800) 321-
4044 FAX: (408) 765-9904
TO: SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro;
SEC Office of Chief Accountant; Head of SEC
Office's of International Affairs,
SEC International Enforcement Assistance, SEC
Division of Enforcement, SEC Office of Internet Enforcement, SEC Division of
Corporate Finance, SEC Division of Corporate Finance Office of Chief Accountant, FBI
White Collar Crime Division and Any and All Compliance
Division Heads and Related Offices:
I, Eliot Bernstein, as the Original Owner and Inventor of key "backbone technologies" for video and imaging as further described herein, am filing this formal complaint against Intel Corporation ( Intel ) with United States headquarters located at 2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, Ca, 95054-1459, and bring to your attention ongoing investigations involving multiple federal offices around the country as well as International investigations pertinent in this matter.
Intel is a primary wrongdoer as a named defendant in a presently pending Trillion
Dollar international RICO conspiracy lawsuit1 involving the theft and fraud of my
Intellectual Property rights as further set out herein. In addition to liabilities claimed in
this lawsuit, are separate direct primary liabilities and obligations from signed agreements
including Non Disclosure’s, Strategic Partner Agreements and Licensing Agreements.
Further, on information and belief Intel corporate management including at least the
President, Paul S. Otellini and corporate counsel Bruce D. Sewell, and Stephen R.
Rodgers are also involved in an ongoing and undisclosed massive international Fraud
against the Intel shareholders and investors.
Upon information and belief, the frauds include but are not limited to the failure
to disclose both the lawsuit and the Intellectual Property infringements in direct violation
of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for
disclosing liabilities and more.
Merely one claim in this lawsuit involves the attempted Murder upon my family by an Iraqi style car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to mine during the early phases of the high stakes corporate theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property rights.
Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to this as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower case2.
summary, dating back to 1998-1999 at the time the inventions were discovered,
I had Signed Non Disclosure Agreements, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing
Arrangements, including Agreements that were at the time in legal review for R3D
relating to the USE of my proprietary rights in inventions which were hailed as the "Holy
Grail" of the internet.
The technologies were deemed the “Holy Grail” by multiple experts under signed NDA’s as it permitted full screen full frame rate video previously thought impossible and zoom and pan imaging technologies which removed pixel distortion.
The stolen technologies are now commonly found on virtually all digital imaging and video hardware and software. These signed agreements were amongst hundreds of signed agreements with many Fortune 1000 Companies.
After signing Agreements with Real 3D, Inc. ( R3D ), a company whose ownership was composed of Lockheed Martin ( 70% ), Intel ( 20% ) and Silicon Graphics Inc. ( 10% ), Intel later took over complete ownership of R3D of Orlando Florida.
In the subsequent months thereafter, a series of critical events occurred including
but not limited to the discovery of fraudulent patent applications and the discovery of
fraudulent corporations, the corporate frauds were discovered by Arthur Andersen during
an audit for the largest investor in the companies Crossbow Ventures of W. Palm Beach
Florida.
Nearly two-thirds of the Crossbow funds were secured through SBIC loans from
the Small Business Administration making the SBA the largest investor in the
technologies and companies.
On information and belief, the SBA Inspector General’s office is conducting an ongoing investigation into these and other matters please refer to the SBA Inspector General’s office to obtain relevant information.
As you will see by the letter and petition to the 44th US President, Barack Hussein
Obama II, found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf
and also sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder, I was then directed by Harry I. Moatz, Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office of Enrollment and
Discipline to file charges with the Commissioner of Patents claiming Fraud Upon the
USPTO, my companies and myself.
This led to the Suspension of certain Intellectual Properties while investigations remain ongoing; please refer to Moatz and the Commissioner of Patents office to obtain relevant information. In addition, Moatz directed me to seek Congressional Legislation to obtain an Act of Congress to correct the falsified Oaths on my Intellectual Properties submitted by my former legal counsel at the law firms of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Schlissel, Foley & Lardner and Proskauer Rose.
An Act of Congress is necessary to make the changes in inventors, owners and assignees
that are fraudulent, for which we have sought aid from The Honorable Senator Dianne
Feinstein who remains working through her offices regarding such.
These backbone technologies which were stolen in 1998-1999 have since been
used throughout the United States and across the globe throughout the entire value chain
of content creation and distribution of video and images for both software and hardware
in the transmission of Digital Video and Imaging across all spectrums, including, the
Internet, Television, DVD, HD DVD, Micro Processing Chips, as well as, a mass of
applications for Defense, Flight & Space Simulation, including on the Hubble Space
Telescope (providing a deeper view into time) and on virtually all Medical Imaging
Devices, and more. In fact, members of R3D and Intel were some of the earliest
champions of the value of the technologies claiming they were “Priceless” and were
valued in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over the life of the Intellectual
Properties, having transformed the world of digital imaging and video that now are
considered part of daily life.
Intel was one of the earliest players in this scheme and has continued to not only
defraud myself and the other rightful owners of the technologies, including Ellen
DeGeneres and Alanis Morissette, but has simultaneously defrauded the Intel's
shareholders and investors for years by failing to report and disclose the liabilities with
full knowledge of their binding obligations regarding the technologies. These frauds and
failures by the Intel management team have continued despite multiple communications
over several years that have gone directly to the President of Intel, Mr. Paul S. Otellini
and their Corporate Counsel Mr. Bruce D. Sewell and Steven R. Rodgers and continue
despite the knowledge of the signed Agreements.
At this time, however, as noted in my Feb. 2009 letter to the Office of the US
President Barack Hussein Obama II and the US Attorney General Eric Holder, I wish to
bring to your direct attention the identities of several federal offices already involved in
this ongoing national and international Intellectual Properties theft and fraud.
Investigations that will aid and facilitate the SEC with background information for the
proper performance of complete investigations by the SEC allowing for information
sharing with these agencies, some of the key offices are as follows:
1. Glenn A. Fine, Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Justice
2. Harry Moatz, Director, OED of the USPTO
3. H. Marshall Jarrett, Office of Professional Responsibility of the FBI
4. A complete list of Federal, State & International Actions can be found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm.
Please note that I provide the SEC and the various Office and Division heads this
background solely as a starting point for full and proper investigations of Intel and related
parties in this matter and that I remain personally available to provide further information
as necessary. It should be noted that a wealth of the history of these matters is available
at my website www.iviewit.tv including links to the current federal complaint filed in the US
Court of Appeals 2nd Circ., the complaint filed with the US District Court – Southern
District of New York, links to the hundreds of signed NDAs, Strategic Alliance
Agreements, License Agreements and more.
It should be further noted that Intel failed to even Disclose the liabilities, even as a
Footnote, in their Annual Reports signed by Ernst & Young for both calendar years 1999
thru 2007 despite the fact that they had engaged in specific communications and / or
received specific communications from 1999-2009 regarding the outstanding obligations
and liabilities associated with Intel's improper use and infringement of my Intellectual
Property rights. See attached emails of 2006-2009 and Intel Annual Statements of 2006-
2007.
Not only did Intel later acquire in whole the R3D company which was intimately
involved in the early phases of this matter and under signed agreements with my
company, but specific members of Intel/ R3D staff were present during key meetings in
the early phases and otherwise involved in these matters including but not limited to,
Lawrence Palley (Director of Business Development @ Intel), Gerald W. Stanley
(Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer @ R3D), David Bolton
(Corporate Counsel @ R3D & Lockheed Martin), Steven A. Behrens (Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer @ R3D), Rosalie Bibona (Program Manager @ R3D), Timothy
P. Connolly (Director, Engineering @ R3D), Richard Gentner (Director of Scalable
Graphics Systems @ R3D), Connie Martin (Director, Software Development @ R3D),
Diane H. Sabol (Director and Corporate Controller Finance & Administration @ R3D),
Rob Kyanko (Intel), Michael Silver (@ ?), Ryan Huisman (@ R3D), Matt Johannsen (@
R3D), Hassan Miah (@ Intel), Dennis Goo (Manager, Digital Home Content for the
Americas @ Intel), Rajeev Kapur (Chief of Staff, Enterprise Product Group @ Intel) and
Kostas Katsohirakis (Business Development Manager @ Intel).
Moreover, as expressly indicated to Intel, the suit presently in litigation in the US
Second Circuit Court of Appeals is but one of many forums where these matters may be
pursued such as other federal courts within the United States and a variety of forums
abroad as well.
As the Intellectual Property crimes are investigated and the IP removed from its current Suspension status3 by the USPTO of course, those claims will be further pursued as Intel is well aware of.
Thus, it is submitted that part of this review and investigation by the SEC should likely involve prior transactions such as the purchase and sale of R3D and related transactions.
Several of the following links will also provide additional background
information:
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/USPTO%20Suspension%20Notices.pdf
Copies of this Was also Sent to
Ernst & Young – Accountancy for Intel
The Honorable John Conyers Jr. ~ Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Glenn Fine ~
Inspector General, United States Department of
Justice
John J. Doll ~ Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office - Deputy Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
The Honorable Harry I. Moatz ~ Director, Office of Enrollment & Discipline,
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. ~ Attorney General, United States
The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Andrew Cuomo ~ Attorney General of New York State, State of New York
Office of the Attorney General
Charlie Crist, Governor, State of Florida
CNN; MSNBC; FOX; NY TIMES; Washington Post; LA Times; Miami Herald;
SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION
Source of This Post and Full Document
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
SEC
So the SEC Knew, Does the Shareholder Know.. even Today do the Intel Shareholder know this Stuff or does Intel CEO Paul S. Otellini plan to keep it a secret until Intel can sock away more of the money?
SEC
"From: Eliot I. Bernstein
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro
SEC Office of Chief Accountant
SEC Office of International Affairs
SEC Office of International Enforcement Assistance
SEC Division of Enforcement
SEC Office of Internet Enforcement
SEC Division of Corporate Finance
SEC Division of Corporate Finance Chief Accountant's Office ( CF-OCA )
Federal Bureau of Investigation – White Collar Crime Unit
Complaint by Letter:
SEC Complaint Center
100 F Street NE,
Washington, D.C. 20549-0213
Complaint by Telefax: 703-813-6965
Complaint by Email: enforcement@sec.gov
Re: Complaint - Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar
Fraud on Intel Shareholders and Others
Intel Corporate Mailing Address
2200 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
Intel Phone Numbers as of March 23, 2009:
(408) 765-8080 MAIN NUMBER (800) 321-
4044 FAX: (408) 765-9904
TO: SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro;
SEC Office of Chief Accountant; Head of SEC
Office's of International Affairs,
SEC International Enforcement Assistance, SEC
Division of Enforcement, SEC Office of Internet Enforcement, SEC Division of
Corporate Finance, SEC Division of Corporate Finance Office of Chief Accountant, FBI
White Collar Crime Division and Any and All Compliance
Division Heads and Related Offices:
I, Eliot Bernstein, as the Original Owner and Inventor of key "backbone technologies" for video and imaging as further described herein, am filing this formal complaint against Intel Corporation ( Intel ) with United States headquarters located at 2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, Ca, 95054-1459, and bring to your attention ongoing investigations involving multiple federal offices around the country as well as International investigations pertinent in this matter.
Intel is a primary wrongdoer as a named defendant in a presently pending Trillion
Dollar international RICO conspiracy lawsuit1 involving the theft and fraud of my
Intellectual Property rights as further set out herein. In addition to liabilities claimed in
this lawsuit, are separate direct primary liabilities and obligations from signed agreements
including Non Disclosure’s, Strategic Partner Agreements and Licensing Agreements.
Further, on information and belief Intel corporate management including at least the
President, Paul S. Otellini and corporate counsel Bruce D. Sewell, and Stephen R.
Rodgers are also involved in an ongoing and undisclosed massive international Fraud
against the Intel shareholders and investors.
Upon information and belief, the frauds include but are not limited to the failure
to disclose both the lawsuit and the Intellectual Property infringements in direct violation
of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for
disclosing liabilities and more.
Merely one claim in this lawsuit involves the attempted Murder upon my family by an Iraqi style car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to mine during the early phases of the high stakes corporate theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property rights.
Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to this as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower case2.
summary, dating back to 1998-1999 at the time the inventions were discovered,
I had Signed Non Disclosure Agreements, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing
Arrangements, including Agreements that were at the time in legal review for R3D
relating to the USE of my proprietary rights in inventions which were hailed as the "Holy
Grail" of the internet.
The technologies were deemed the “Holy Grail” by multiple experts under signed NDA’s as it permitted full screen full frame rate video previously thought impossible and zoom and pan imaging technologies which removed pixel distortion.
The stolen technologies are now commonly found on virtually all digital imaging and video hardware and software. These signed agreements were amongst hundreds of signed agreements with many Fortune 1000 Companies.
After signing Agreements with Real 3D, Inc. ( R3D ), a company whose ownership was composed of Lockheed Martin ( 70% ), Intel ( 20% ) and Silicon Graphics Inc. ( 10% ), Intel later took over complete ownership of R3D of Orlando Florida.
In the subsequent months thereafter, a series of critical events occurred including
but not limited to the discovery of fraudulent patent applications and the discovery of
fraudulent corporations, the corporate frauds were discovered by Arthur Andersen during
an audit for the largest investor in the companies Crossbow Ventures of W. Palm Beach
Florida.
Nearly two-thirds of the Crossbow funds were secured through SBIC loans from
the Small Business Administration making the SBA the largest investor in the
technologies and companies.
On information and belief, the SBA Inspector General’s office is conducting an ongoing investigation into these and other matters please refer to the SBA Inspector General’s office to obtain relevant information.
As you will see by the letter and petition to the 44th US President, Barack Hussein
Obama II, found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf
and also sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder, I was then directed by Harry I. Moatz, Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office of Enrollment and
Discipline to file charges with the Commissioner of Patents claiming Fraud Upon the
USPTO, my companies and myself.
This led to the Suspension of certain Intellectual Properties while investigations remain ongoing; please refer to Moatz and the Commissioner of Patents office to obtain relevant information. In addition, Moatz directed me to seek Congressional Legislation to obtain an Act of Congress to correct the falsified Oaths on my Intellectual Properties submitted by my former legal counsel at the law firms of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Schlissel, Foley & Lardner and Proskauer Rose.
An Act of Congress is necessary to make the changes in inventors, owners and assignees
that are fraudulent, for which we have sought aid from The Honorable Senator Dianne
Feinstein who remains working through her offices regarding such.
These backbone technologies which were stolen in 1998-1999 have since been
used throughout the United States and across the globe throughout the entire value chain
of content creation and distribution of video and images for both software and hardware
in the transmission of Digital Video and Imaging across all spectrums, including, the
Internet, Television, DVD, HD DVD, Micro Processing Chips, as well as, a mass of
applications for Defense, Flight & Space Simulation, including on the Hubble Space
Telescope (providing a deeper view into time) and on virtually all Medical Imaging
Devices, and more. In fact, members of R3D and Intel were some of the earliest
champions of the value of the technologies claiming they were “Priceless” and were
valued in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over the life of the Intellectual
Properties, having transformed the world of digital imaging and video that now are
considered part of daily life.
Intel was one of the earliest players in this scheme and has continued to not only
defraud myself and the other rightful owners of the technologies, including Ellen
DeGeneres and Alanis Morissette, but has simultaneously defrauded the Intel's
shareholders and investors for years by failing to report and disclose the liabilities with
full knowledge of their binding obligations regarding the technologies. These frauds and
failures by the Intel management team have continued despite multiple communications
over several years that have gone directly to the President of Intel, Mr. Paul S. Otellini
and their Corporate Counsel Mr. Bruce D. Sewell and Steven R. Rodgers and continue
despite the knowledge of the signed Agreements.
At this time, however, as noted in my Feb. 2009 letter to the Office of the US
President Barack Hussein Obama II and the US Attorney General Eric Holder, I wish to
bring to your direct attention the identities of several federal offices already involved in
this ongoing national and international Intellectual Properties theft and fraud.
Investigations that will aid and facilitate the SEC with background information for the
proper performance of complete investigations by the SEC allowing for information
sharing with these agencies, some of the key offices are as follows:
1. Glenn A. Fine, Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Justice
2. Harry Moatz, Director, OED of the USPTO
3. H. Marshall Jarrett, Office of Professional Responsibility of the FBI
4. A complete list of Federal, State & International Actions can be found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm.
Please note that I provide the SEC and the various Office and Division heads this
background solely as a starting point for full and proper investigations of Intel and related
parties in this matter and that I remain personally available to provide further information
as necessary. It should be noted that a wealth of the history of these matters is available
at my website www.iviewit.tv including links to the current federal complaint filed in the US
Court of Appeals 2nd Circ., the complaint filed with the US District Court – Southern
District of New York, links to the hundreds of signed NDAs, Strategic Alliance
Agreements, License Agreements and more.
It should be further noted that Intel failed to even Disclose the liabilities, even as a
Footnote, in their Annual Reports signed by Ernst & Young for both calendar years 1999
thru 2007 despite the fact that they had engaged in specific communications and / or
received specific communications from 1999-2009 regarding the outstanding obligations
and liabilities associated with Intel's improper use and infringement of my Intellectual
Property rights. See attached emails of 2006-2009 and Intel Annual Statements of 2006-
2007.
Not only did Intel later acquire in whole the R3D company which was intimately
involved in the early phases of this matter and under signed agreements with my
company, but specific members of Intel/ R3D staff were present during key meetings in
the early phases and otherwise involved in these matters including but not limited to,
Lawrence Palley (Director of Business Development @ Intel), Gerald W. Stanley
(Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer @ R3D), David Bolton
(Corporate Counsel @ R3D & Lockheed Martin), Steven A. Behrens (Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer @ R3D), Rosalie Bibona (Program Manager @ R3D), Timothy
P. Connolly (Director, Engineering @ R3D), Richard Gentner (Director of Scalable
Graphics Systems @ R3D), Connie Martin (Director, Software Development @ R3D),
Diane H. Sabol (Director and Corporate Controller Finance & Administration @ R3D),
Rob Kyanko (Intel), Michael Silver (@ ?), Ryan Huisman (@ R3D), Matt Johannsen (@
R3D), Hassan Miah (@ Intel), Dennis Goo (Manager, Digital Home Content for the
Americas @ Intel), Rajeev Kapur (Chief of Staff, Enterprise Product Group @ Intel) and
Kostas Katsohirakis (Business Development Manager @ Intel).
Moreover, as expressly indicated to Intel, the suit presently in litigation in the US
Second Circuit Court of Appeals is but one of many forums where these matters may be
pursued such as other federal courts within the United States and a variety of forums
abroad as well.
As the Intellectual Property crimes are investigated and the IP removed from its current Suspension status3 by the USPTO of course, those claims will be further pursued as Intel is well aware of.
Thus, it is submitted that part of this review and investigation by the SEC should likely involve prior transactions such as the purchase and sale of R3D and related transactions.
Several of the following links will also provide additional background
information:
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/USPTO%20Suspension%20Notices.pdf
Copies of this Was also Sent to
Ernst & Young – Accountancy for Intel
The Honorable John Conyers Jr. ~ Chairman, House Judiciary Committee
The Honorable Glenn Fine ~
Inspector General, United States Department of
Justice
John J. Doll ~ Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office - Deputy Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
The Honorable Harry I. Moatz ~ Director, Office of Enrollment & Discipline,
United States Patent & Trademark Office
Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. ~ Attorney General, United States
The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Andrew Cuomo ~ Attorney General of New York State, State of New York
Office of the Attorney General
Charlie Crist, Governor, State of Florida
CNN; MSNBC; FOX; NY TIMES; Washington Post; LA Times; Miami Herald;
SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION
Source of This Post and Full Document
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
SEC
So the SEC Knew, Does the Shareholder Know.. even Today do the Intel Shareholder know this Stuff or does Intel CEO Paul S. Otellini plan to keep it a secret until Intel can sock away more of the money?
SEC
Monday, December 7, 2009
Letter to Sachin Garg from Eliot Bernstein Regarding Proskauer Rose and the IviewIt Stolen Patent.
"Sachin,
First thank you and I am sorry that writing a news story has put you in the middle of Patentgate but the name should give some warning as to just how big of a story is unfolding and just how frightened the law firms are of public awareness of the story. The others copied were shareholders and friends. First, I have published only the actual news story from your site at my blog, I will not publish further without permission of yours but that was already a published article.
1. No court has decided in Proskauer's favor any of the allegations, as no court has heard the case or tried the criminal aspects of any of the petitions filed by Iviewit. The courts having denied the Iviewit petitions clearly serve as NO victory to either side. The bar complaints in Florida and New York were never prosecuted or heard by the bars and were dismissed on review, again clearly no victory.
In fact, in Florida and New York, at the bars and disciplinary departments, Proskauer partners were found violating state Supreme Court bar positions and these allegations have been filed against the partners but have been refused to be heard by the courts. Again, clearly no legal victory for Proskauer, just a delay to a ticking bomb.
2. The only court case I am aware of is the Proskauer instigated billing case against Iviewit in Florida. It is now learned that the companies sued have stolen intellectual properties in them and were identically named to Iviewit entities, this was part of the original attempt to steal the inventions.
Proskauer did all the corporation set up work and controlled the patent work, thereby the ones that are responsible for the corporate and patent scheme and artifices to defraud shareholders found in this case.
The billing case was a fiasco for Proskauer from the start, in fact, until senior management at AOLTW/WB were doing due-dilligence for a twenty five million dollar investment in Iviewit, Iviewit was not even aware that it was in litigation with anyone. How might this be you ask, the answer is simple, Proskauer had sued companies that looked and smelled like Iviewit companies, but they were duplicate companies whereby stolen IP was being funnelled out the door.
Imagine the company's surprise when AOLTW/WB notified the company at an investment meeting that we were in a lawsuit with our former attorneys, Proskauer and Proskauer's former management hires had filed an involuntary bankruptcy on us.
The reason I say former was because weeks before learning of these legal actions Proskauer and their management were fired by the Board because it appeared that bogus companies and patents existed and we were just finding the beginnings of the evidence at the time.
At that time that the company learned of this from AOLTW/WB I had fled Florida where the corporate HQ was for Iviewit, because upon firing Brain Utley, he flew to California and threatened me with my life if I told anyone about the patents we were finding in his name. The problem was that I had already notified certain investors, shareholders and authorities of the crimes.
That night, I called my wife in Florida and told her to pack our home and children, leave our stuff behind and flee Florida. A few days later that is what she did, we took residency at the St. Regis hotel in LA, then the Luxor, then a house in LA, then a house in Escondido, then back to Florida for the billing case, then out of Florida when the car was blown up to California.
We have been on the run for our lives since that day, waiting to get these matters into court, a fair court, but that has proven difficult as these law firms have positioned to block us through conflicts and violations of public office and downright violating the law as if it did not exist.
Whilst we hid in California we prepared our case for the Florida billing case. The first thing the company did was to meet with the lawyers who had been representing the supposed Iviewit companies in the lawsuit and bankruptcy. We then fired them and replaced them with counsel, Steven Selz, Esq. and Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. who helped try and put together a counter complaint that would bring to the court the crimes that at the time were known. At that time we did not know a fraction of the crimes committed.
The judge would not let the case expose the criminal elements and after denying a counter complaint that contained the allegations, the judge limited the case to only billing issues. The judge ignored the fact that Proskauer did not have any bills or retainer with the companies they sued. In fact, at that time it appeared that in the billing case and the involuntary bk that the companies sued had no obligations to either Proskauer or their former management in the bk.
In the two cases the parties appeared to have no claims against the companies they sued. At the time, we thought they were merely stupid and filed against the wrong companies. At the time we did not know that two sets of identical companies had been formed and that two sets of nearly identical patent applications had been filed.
Back to the billing court room where upon dismissing the counter complaint containing the allegations of fraud including fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and foreign nations, the judge dismissed two law firms (Steven Selz, Esq. and Schiffren & Barroway) who were representing Iviewit, on the eve of trial (this was after a trial had been scheduled and then cancelled without notice to Iviewit or our counsel).
The first trial would have inevitably brought the matters into court whether the judge tried to exculpate Proskauer by limiting it to a billing case and certain false and perjured statements of Rubenstein and Wheeler in their depositions would have been fair game for trial.
At the re-scheduling hearing both counsels for Iviewit submitted requests from the judge requesting to be relieved as counsel stating the other would be representing us at the trial. Selz, who had been representing the case for almost two years was asked in writing by Schiffrin and Barroway to step down as they had signed and Letter of Understanding with Iviewit to represent us in all court cases and to infuse Iviewit with two million dollars of cash, this document can be found at the iviewit site under the Supreme Court link on the left navigation bar, under the Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 130, and ruled a default judgement for Iviewi's failure in 15 days to obtain replacement counsel.
Iviewit's rights to counsel denied, Iviewit's access to the court shutdown and further Selz disappeared for weeks with all the files for appeal and Schiffrin & Barroway defaulted on their signed LOU, also trying to hijack the Iviewit case files, to prevent appeal, it was obvious that Schiffrin & Barroway were planted to derail the case and with Judge Labarga this is exactly what unfolded.
Again, this case was limited to billing issues and it was not until almost two years later that the companies sued were found to be illegal mirror companies with stolen patents in Brian Utley's name. We learned this information from the patent office, who reviewed Iviewit attorney intellectual property documents from the law firms, including Proskauer, that had falsified inventors, owners and assignees on them.
Immediately the Patent Office OED Director Harry I. Moatz began formal investigation of the attorneys and began to aid Iviewit in getting their patents into suspensions by petitioning the Commissioner of Patents that Fraud on the United States Patent Office had occured. Those investigations remains ongoing.
3. The only victories, if you can call them that, that Proskauer may want to inform you of, are at the state bars in New York and Florida. Yet victory may not be the word, conflict of interest and violation of public offices, are the correct words.
In both state bars, Proskauer partners were found after several years, to be handling bar complaints against their partners while holding Supreme Court Bar Associations positions that conflicted with their personal involvement in the matters. Upon finding these conflicts, in Florida the matter was brought to the Supreme Court of Florida who began to review the case and when they found that the conflicts elevated to the President of Flabar and other inside employees they simply denied to hear the case and matters against Proskauer and their partners caught violating their public offices.
A way out of the mess that would have caused considerable embarrasement to the Florida Supreme Court so they just denied to hear it, yet again this is a no win for either side. It is strange the court took this course but the Florida Supreme Court appears conflicted with Florida Bar as it is directly under their control and a part of the Supreme Court.
This may be the single greatest threat to the institution of law and all good lawyers, to have a self regulating attorney controlled bar that can be infiltrated by guilty lawyers who handle the complaints against themselves and their firms. Even once caught in conflict and violation these attorneys if they gain control of the highest positions at the bar can then simply deny to accept complaints against those caught violating public office including themselves.
In fact, legal counsel for Florida Bar, John Anthony Boggs, writes in a a letter, (Iviewit Supreme Court Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 265) that although Triggs was in violation of his office post with the Supreme Court of Florida - Florida Bar post, that is could have, would have been ok had he at the time filed a conflict waiver, which he failed to do. Should of, could have, would have, are baseless arguements, and then to clinch it, Boggs sites a reference to proposed law, instead of the law, thinking we and you would be foolish enough to rely on his citing of proposed law which was not enacted at that time. It appears Boggs may have been the officer writing the proposed legislation and changes to bar law.
Was Boggs' authoring such law in attempt to exculpate bar members like Triggs, I will leave this to your interpretation. When this is then brought to the state Supreme Court of Florida, who has liability for the bar officers and the Florida Bar officers, a total miscarriage of justice can and did occur in these matters, whereby the court simply denied a citizens complaints by denying the public a chance to have the bar members prosecuted. An attorney protection agency is thereby devised, not a consumer friendly organization, as our experiences with these attorney country clubs show.
Just how high in the courts and administration did Proskauer and the other law firms plant. How high does Patentgate go?
This refusal of the bar of Florida and the Supreme Court of Florida to accept complaints against their officers in violation of public office led to Iviewit filing a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States to force Florida to prosecute those caught in verified conflicts of interest.
The Supreme Court denied the petition, again the case was not heard and obviously Proskauer cannot claim that as court victory as the case was not heard, again a victory for neither side. None of this is a court victory, obviously that would take a court to hear the matters and then decide after reviewing the facts. Not the case but I would like to hear Proskauer claim that either the Supreme Court of Florida or the United Supreme Court Case was decided in their favor in this matter. This is an untrue statement so I believe they will try to dance versus confront the fact that the case can still be filed and heard in court.
This case scares the Iviewit shareholders, as they were denied rights to file complaints against Supreme Court of Florida bar members who had violated public offices and the bar then refused complaints against those officers caught and verified in conflict by the bar. This means that public officers caught violating office and who have formal written complaints against them, can simply position within the bar to handle the complaints against themselves and refuse docketing of complaints against these matters, quite inapposite the Florida Constitution's intent on setting up a bar.
Bar complaints were filed against all of the following and were refused formal docketing by the bar: Matthew Triggs (violated a public office rule regarding representing anyone before the bar in a blackout period for officers of the bar, he represented Wheeler in such blackout period), Christopher Wheeler (intitial complaint was filed and never heard by Florida Bar so no victory for Proskauer) subsequent complaints were not docketed for formal procedures to take place, Anthony Boggs, Kelly Overstreet Johnson (she was President of Bar and handling the case matters against Wheeler and forgot to tell us she worked directly under Wheeler's brother, James Wheeler, at small real estate firm in Boca) and Eric Turner for violating internal rules of Flabar.
These complaints are of tantamount interest to citizens of the US as no legal power allows the bar to dismiss bar complaints filed by Iviewit shareholders against its members without formal docketing and disposition.
Reminiscent of communist Russia where complaints against public officials were dealt with by "off with your head." Yet this case behooves the question of just how high up this fiasco goes in the administration and within the legal system. Yet in all those bar complaints, including the original Wheeler, all handled by officers caught in conflict, Proskauer cannot say that any of them were heard or decided in their favor by a court of law for this is simply untrue and your review of the matters will so find.
4. In New York same game, different players, but with a big twist. At the same time we found the Florida Bar Proskauer conflicts, we found one in New York. Past President Steven C. Krane (former law clerk for Chief Judge of the New York courts Judith Kaye ), a Proskauer partner and former President of the New York State Bar Association had defended Kenneth Rubenstein his Proskauer partner in his bar complaint at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
Krane while having conflicting posts and an officer of the First Department DDC handled this complaint filed by the Iviewit shareholders.
Krane also is the most prominent member of the disciplinary system in New York, including holding prominent posts at the First Department and he took the case while being excluded under his former position (prohibitions against representation for one year after being NYSBA President) and violation of his active roles at the First Department at the time the complaints were filed. Krane when discovered in conflict then even represented himself in his own complaint while holding positions at the First Department DDC, talk about a conflict, Iviewit Supreme Court Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 215 - Krane suicide note.
Note that Krane attempts to state that he is not conflicted because of his NYSBA role, which is false, but more importantly he fails to disclose his conflicts with his roles at the First Department, yet he was busted by Clerk of the First Department, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who disclosed after Krane's suicide note that she served on a First Department Disciplinary Committee with Krane and Cahill (chief counsel of First Dept DDC) and whereby Krane held a role, amongst others, as a referee.
This confession, led to further complaints agaisnt Krane and now against Cahill, for both had tried to cover up this most grand conflict and violation of Supreme Court of New York Disciplnart Department office violations. Prior to Wolfe's confession, Cahill had tried to defend Krane's representation of Rubenstein and himself, Cahill's inquiry is still under investigation by Martin Gold, Exhibit 237 and 323 and inquiry #2004.1122. Mr. Gold has never contacted us regarding the disposition of this inquiry and fails to return calls or letters, perhaps your journalistic efforts will get further with this public inquiry.
Before taking the defense of Rubenstein or himself, Krane failed to seek any waivers or conflict of interest checks from the Bar or First Department DDC and certainly there is cause for concern here. That concern led to a petition with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department and after review by five justices, Rubenstein, Krane and Joao were ordered for formal IVESTIGATION by that court, see Iviewit Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 295.
The matters were transferred to the Second Department Disciplinary Committee who decided to try and dismiss the cases on review and skirt the court ordered investigation. Upon recieving a letter stating that Second Department was not investigating per the five justices court order, we found that the case worker at Second Department DDC had admitted conflicts with Steven Krane and we filed complaints against her.
These complaints were not formally docketed and disposed of in accordance with law, she denied to file complaints against herself, acting as chief counsel for that department. We took the matters to Lawrence DiGiovana the Chairman of Second Department DDC and he refused to file charges against chief counsel for failing to docket the complaints, and a complaint was filed against him. Also, and still under investigation, is a complaint against Thomas Cahill of the Chief Counsel of the First Department DDC for his involvement with Krane that caused the conflicts to go unchecked originally.
At that time, it was learned that Krane who clerked for Judith Kaye (and she is one of the most powerful members of the disciplinary committee)had far more conflict with this relation.
The reason, Judith Kaye whose office refused to even answer the calls after the mess began, although they did take submissions from Iviewit, was found to be married to a Proskauer partner Stephen Krane. Both Krane and Stephen Kaye are members of the newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department and this means from the Chief Judge down through all of the disciplinarydepartments they control, New York cannot hear the matters without bias and prejudice. As Krane, Rubenstein, Stephen Krane (and through marriage Judith Kaye) are all conflicted and in fact Iviewit shareholders, their interest should never have come near these complaints, but instead direct involvement is found.
Judith Kaye also has interest in defending her husband and former law clerk from facing these charges as they could end up serving lengthy federal sentences and total loss of assets, especially if a RICO is brought against Proskauer and those allegations have been made to the proper federal investigators of the matters and are being investigated formally.
Yet, you may ask what happened to the Court ordered investigations of Krane, Rubenstein and Joao, the answer is that they were railroaded by the Second Department DDC and Second Department who tried to dismiss them on review and avoid the formal court ordered investigation of five justices. This will now lead to the next 5 United States Supreme Court petitions to be filed by the Iviewit shareholders.
In New York it is futile to try and get the matters investigated as court ordered because the conflicts rise to the top, so we will beginpetitioning the Supreme Court shortly to force formal investigations and force the Bar to docket complaints against their members caught in the fiasco who refuse to file complaints against themselves.
Again, in New York the only court that has heard the matters has ruled for formal investigation to be completed that has never occured. Even at the Second Department Proskauer cannot claim that a court heard their case and ruled in their favor as this is patently false and I would love to see that in the press.
The Second Department tried to wiggle out with a dismissal on review but this means they never heard the case.
What is outrageous is that all of these lawyers accused fear the court room against one pro-se inventor, so they have to use every dirty legal trick to avoid the court, position in conflicts, abuse public offices, and then try to state that those are court room victories, how weak.
The letters they have from the Florida Bar and New York departments trying to say Proskauer was not patent counsel or the likes are worthless, all tendered by people in conflict who have evaded prosecution through clever court politicking and perhaps payola and the likes. Again, it behooves the question of just how high up in the administration and legal community this crime elevates. Further, they have not been cleared in a single formal investigation by state, federal and international authorities.
Ask Proskauer, if Eliot and Iviewit are wrong or liars, why are thier patents in suspension pending charges that Rubenstein and 8 others have committed fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Offices. Why are all the other criminal investigations still underway? Why were you not able to win a decisive court room victory in the allegations of crimes (do not let them bore you trying to convince you the billing case they instituted vindicated them from federal, international or state crimes, those matters were never heard in that court).
Please address these issues with Proskauer. As to being told to take down a news story, it appears they fear the press and public disclosure.
I would consult a lawyer as to what they can do but I do not think they can do much other than try to get a court order to take it down. You are astute to note that if they have nothing to worry about...
Yet, they have a lot to worry about as again the truth being told will bring down the house and the crimes if prosecuted by the goverment are so voliminous as to cause federal prison sentences for all involved. They appear to be using the monies stolen from my technologies to buy off government seats, even within esteemed institutions such as Supreme Courts and state bars, to stave off the inevitable court room day where they have to face the evidences against them.
Kudos to them for holding it off this far, yet it has just entangled so many more people and now to hold off the justice department and other investigators or try to derail those, would take cabinet level officers at the Commerce Dept, the Patent Dept, the FBI, the DOJ and others and this would inevitably lead to a Patentgate for those in the administration and courts found to have violated thier public offices or laws. How high did it go is the question asked by Iviewit shareholders and others and until a conflict free court is found Iviewit does not wish to disclose information relating to the elements we are already aware of and our view of how high this goes.
It is interesting to note, the Florida billing case was judged by Jorge Labarga who is the Florida judge who threw the election of Gore v. Bush to the Supreme Court who decided quite unconstitutionally the President, instead of allowing for a recount of the bogus ballots.
The threads are deep, I do not want your life to be jeopardized, one look at my family's car blown up should scare you, knowing that the fire inspectors of FLorida have already determined incinary devices and accelarants to have been used. I was evicted from my house in Florida last year by a court, Labarga's courthouse, W. Palm Beach, where all of our rights were denied in yet another antict to destroy our ability to bring these matters to the public.
Yet, as you have probably read at our site, I fear no evil and so I pursue with all the others who wait for the truth to be told and our inventions returned. Have you called Crossbow Ventures for their story and what has happened after their meetings with the Inspector General of the Small Business Administration.
r
I would love to see the letters Proskauer sent to both you and Erik.
Best regards ~ Eliot "
r
Source of this Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/
r
First thank you and I am sorry that writing a news story has put you in the middle of Patentgate but the name should give some warning as to just how big of a story is unfolding and just how frightened the law firms are of public awareness of the story. The others copied were shareholders and friends. First, I have published only the actual news story from your site at my blog, I will not publish further without permission of yours but that was already a published article.
1. No court has decided in Proskauer's favor any of the allegations, as no court has heard the case or tried the criminal aspects of any of the petitions filed by Iviewit. The courts having denied the Iviewit petitions clearly serve as NO victory to either side. The bar complaints in Florida and New York were never prosecuted or heard by the bars and were dismissed on review, again clearly no victory.
In fact, in Florida and New York, at the bars and disciplinary departments, Proskauer partners were found violating state Supreme Court bar positions and these allegations have been filed against the partners but have been refused to be heard by the courts. Again, clearly no legal victory for Proskauer, just a delay to a ticking bomb.
2. The only court case I am aware of is the Proskauer instigated billing case against Iviewit in Florida. It is now learned that the companies sued have stolen intellectual properties in them and were identically named to Iviewit entities, this was part of the original attempt to steal the inventions.
Proskauer did all the corporation set up work and controlled the patent work, thereby the ones that are responsible for the corporate and patent scheme and artifices to defraud shareholders found in this case.
The billing case was a fiasco for Proskauer from the start, in fact, until senior management at AOLTW/WB were doing due-dilligence for a twenty five million dollar investment in Iviewit, Iviewit was not even aware that it was in litigation with anyone. How might this be you ask, the answer is simple, Proskauer had sued companies that looked and smelled like Iviewit companies, but they were duplicate companies whereby stolen IP was being funnelled out the door.
Imagine the company's surprise when AOLTW/WB notified the company at an investment meeting that we were in a lawsuit with our former attorneys, Proskauer and Proskauer's former management hires had filed an involuntary bankruptcy on us.
The reason I say former was because weeks before learning of these legal actions Proskauer and their management were fired by the Board because it appeared that bogus companies and patents existed and we were just finding the beginnings of the evidence at the time.
At that time that the company learned of this from AOLTW/WB I had fled Florida where the corporate HQ was for Iviewit, because upon firing Brain Utley, he flew to California and threatened me with my life if I told anyone about the patents we were finding in his name. The problem was that I had already notified certain investors, shareholders and authorities of the crimes.
That night, I called my wife in Florida and told her to pack our home and children, leave our stuff behind and flee Florida. A few days later that is what she did, we took residency at the St. Regis hotel in LA, then the Luxor, then a house in LA, then a house in Escondido, then back to Florida for the billing case, then out of Florida when the car was blown up to California.
We have been on the run for our lives since that day, waiting to get these matters into court, a fair court, but that has proven difficult as these law firms have positioned to block us through conflicts and violations of public office and downright violating the law as if it did not exist.
Whilst we hid in California we prepared our case for the Florida billing case. The first thing the company did was to meet with the lawyers who had been representing the supposed Iviewit companies in the lawsuit and bankruptcy. We then fired them and replaced them with counsel, Steven Selz, Esq. and Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. who helped try and put together a counter complaint that would bring to the court the crimes that at the time were known. At that time we did not know a fraction of the crimes committed.
The judge would not let the case expose the criminal elements and after denying a counter complaint that contained the allegations, the judge limited the case to only billing issues. The judge ignored the fact that Proskauer did not have any bills or retainer with the companies they sued. In fact, at that time it appeared that in the billing case and the involuntary bk that the companies sued had no obligations to either Proskauer or their former management in the bk.
In the two cases the parties appeared to have no claims against the companies they sued. At the time, we thought they were merely stupid and filed against the wrong companies. At the time we did not know that two sets of identical companies had been formed and that two sets of nearly identical patent applications had been filed.
Back to the billing court room where upon dismissing the counter complaint containing the allegations of fraud including fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and foreign nations, the judge dismissed two law firms (Steven Selz, Esq. and Schiffren & Barroway) who were representing Iviewit, on the eve of trial (this was after a trial had been scheduled and then cancelled without notice to Iviewit or our counsel).
The first trial would have inevitably brought the matters into court whether the judge tried to exculpate Proskauer by limiting it to a billing case and certain false and perjured statements of Rubenstein and Wheeler in their depositions would have been fair game for trial.
At the re-scheduling hearing both counsels for Iviewit submitted requests from the judge requesting to be relieved as counsel stating the other would be representing us at the trial. Selz, who had been representing the case for almost two years was asked in writing by Schiffrin and Barroway to step down as they had signed and Letter of Understanding with Iviewit to represent us in all court cases and to infuse Iviewit with two million dollars of cash, this document can be found at the iviewit site under the Supreme Court link on the left navigation bar, under the Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 130, and ruled a default judgement for Iviewi's failure in 15 days to obtain replacement counsel.
Iviewit's rights to counsel denied, Iviewit's access to the court shutdown and further Selz disappeared for weeks with all the files for appeal and Schiffrin & Barroway defaulted on their signed LOU, also trying to hijack the Iviewit case files, to prevent appeal, it was obvious that Schiffrin & Barroway were planted to derail the case and with Judge Labarga this is exactly what unfolded.
Again, this case was limited to billing issues and it was not until almost two years later that the companies sued were found to be illegal mirror companies with stolen patents in Brian Utley's name. We learned this information from the patent office, who reviewed Iviewit attorney intellectual property documents from the law firms, including Proskauer, that had falsified inventors, owners and assignees on them.
Immediately the Patent Office OED Director Harry I. Moatz began formal investigation of the attorneys and began to aid Iviewit in getting their patents into suspensions by petitioning the Commissioner of Patents that Fraud on the United States Patent Office had occured. Those investigations remains ongoing.
3. The only victories, if you can call them that, that Proskauer may want to inform you of, are at the state bars in New York and Florida. Yet victory may not be the word, conflict of interest and violation of public offices, are the correct words.
In both state bars, Proskauer partners were found after several years, to be handling bar complaints against their partners while holding Supreme Court Bar Associations positions that conflicted with their personal involvement in the matters. Upon finding these conflicts, in Florida the matter was brought to the Supreme Court of Florida who began to review the case and when they found that the conflicts elevated to the President of Flabar and other inside employees they simply denied to hear the case and matters against Proskauer and their partners caught violating their public offices.
A way out of the mess that would have caused considerable embarrasement to the Florida Supreme Court so they just denied to hear it, yet again this is a no win for either side. It is strange the court took this course but the Florida Supreme Court appears conflicted with Florida Bar as it is directly under their control and a part of the Supreme Court.
This may be the single greatest threat to the institution of law and all good lawyers, to have a self regulating attorney controlled bar that can be infiltrated by guilty lawyers who handle the complaints against themselves and their firms. Even once caught in conflict and violation these attorneys if they gain control of the highest positions at the bar can then simply deny to accept complaints against those caught violating public office including themselves.
In fact, legal counsel for Florida Bar, John Anthony Boggs, writes in a a letter, (Iviewit Supreme Court Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 265) that although Triggs was in violation of his office post with the Supreme Court of Florida - Florida Bar post, that is could have, would have been ok had he at the time filed a conflict waiver, which he failed to do. Should of, could have, would have, are baseless arguements, and then to clinch it, Boggs sites a reference to proposed law, instead of the law, thinking we and you would be foolish enough to rely on his citing of proposed law which was not enacted at that time. It appears Boggs may have been the officer writing the proposed legislation and changes to bar law.
Was Boggs' authoring such law in attempt to exculpate bar members like Triggs, I will leave this to your interpretation. When this is then brought to the state Supreme Court of Florida, who has liability for the bar officers and the Florida Bar officers, a total miscarriage of justice can and did occur in these matters, whereby the court simply denied a citizens complaints by denying the public a chance to have the bar members prosecuted. An attorney protection agency is thereby devised, not a consumer friendly organization, as our experiences with these attorney country clubs show.
Just how high in the courts and administration did Proskauer and the other law firms plant. How high does Patentgate go?
This refusal of the bar of Florida and the Supreme Court of Florida to accept complaints against their officers in violation of public office led to Iviewit filing a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States to force Florida to prosecute those caught in verified conflicts of interest.
The Supreme Court denied the petition, again the case was not heard and obviously Proskauer cannot claim that as court victory as the case was not heard, again a victory for neither side. None of this is a court victory, obviously that would take a court to hear the matters and then decide after reviewing the facts. Not the case but I would like to hear Proskauer claim that either the Supreme Court of Florida or the United Supreme Court Case was decided in their favor in this matter. This is an untrue statement so I believe they will try to dance versus confront the fact that the case can still be filed and heard in court.
This case scares the Iviewit shareholders, as they were denied rights to file complaints against Supreme Court of Florida bar members who had violated public offices and the bar then refused complaints against those officers caught and verified in conflict by the bar. This means that public officers caught violating office and who have formal written complaints against them, can simply position within the bar to handle the complaints against themselves and refuse docketing of complaints against these matters, quite inapposite the Florida Constitution's intent on setting up a bar.
Bar complaints were filed against all of the following and were refused formal docketing by the bar: Matthew Triggs (violated a public office rule regarding representing anyone before the bar in a blackout period for officers of the bar, he represented Wheeler in such blackout period), Christopher Wheeler (intitial complaint was filed and never heard by Florida Bar so no victory for Proskauer) subsequent complaints were not docketed for formal procedures to take place, Anthony Boggs, Kelly Overstreet Johnson (she was President of Bar and handling the case matters against Wheeler and forgot to tell us she worked directly under Wheeler's brother, James Wheeler, at small real estate firm in Boca) and Eric Turner for violating internal rules of Flabar.
These complaints are of tantamount interest to citizens of the US as no legal power allows the bar to dismiss bar complaints filed by Iviewit shareholders against its members without formal docketing and disposition.
Reminiscent of communist Russia where complaints against public officials were dealt with by "off with your head." Yet this case behooves the question of just how high up this fiasco goes in the administration and within the legal system. Yet in all those bar complaints, including the original Wheeler, all handled by officers caught in conflict, Proskauer cannot say that any of them were heard or decided in their favor by a court of law for this is simply untrue and your review of the matters will so find.
4. In New York same game, different players, but with a big twist. At the same time we found the Florida Bar Proskauer conflicts, we found one in New York. Past President Steven C. Krane (former law clerk for Chief Judge of the New York courts Judith Kaye ), a Proskauer partner and former President of the New York State Bar Association had defended Kenneth Rubenstein his Proskauer partner in his bar complaint at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
Krane while having conflicting posts and an officer of the First Department DDC handled this complaint filed by the Iviewit shareholders.
Krane also is the most prominent member of the disciplinary system in New York, including holding prominent posts at the First Department and he took the case while being excluded under his former position (prohibitions against representation for one year after being NYSBA President) and violation of his active roles at the First Department at the time the complaints were filed. Krane when discovered in conflict then even represented himself in his own complaint while holding positions at the First Department DDC, talk about a conflict, Iviewit Supreme Court Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 215 - Krane suicide note.
Note that Krane attempts to state that he is not conflicted because of his NYSBA role, which is false, but more importantly he fails to disclose his conflicts with his roles at the First Department, yet he was busted by Clerk of the First Department, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who disclosed after Krane's suicide note that she served on a First Department Disciplinary Committee with Krane and Cahill (chief counsel of First Dept DDC) and whereby Krane held a role, amongst others, as a referee.
This confession, led to further complaints agaisnt Krane and now against Cahill, for both had tried to cover up this most grand conflict and violation of Supreme Court of New York Disciplnart Department office violations. Prior to Wolfe's confession, Cahill had tried to defend Krane's representation of Rubenstein and himself, Cahill's inquiry is still under investigation by Martin Gold, Exhibit 237 and 323 and inquiry #2004.1122. Mr. Gold has never contacted us regarding the disposition of this inquiry and fails to return calls or letters, perhaps your journalistic efforts will get further with this public inquiry.
Before taking the defense of Rubenstein or himself, Krane failed to seek any waivers or conflict of interest checks from the Bar or First Department DDC and certainly there is cause for concern here. That concern led to a petition with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department and after review by five justices, Rubenstein, Krane and Joao were ordered for formal IVESTIGATION by that court, see Iviewit Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 295.
The matters were transferred to the Second Department Disciplinary Committee who decided to try and dismiss the cases on review and skirt the court ordered investigation. Upon recieving a letter stating that Second Department was not investigating per the five justices court order, we found that the case worker at Second Department DDC had admitted conflicts with Steven Krane and we filed complaints against her.
These complaints were not formally docketed and disposed of in accordance with law, she denied to file complaints against herself, acting as chief counsel for that department. We took the matters to Lawrence DiGiovana the Chairman of Second Department DDC and he refused to file charges against chief counsel for failing to docket the complaints, and a complaint was filed against him. Also, and still under investigation, is a complaint against Thomas Cahill of the Chief Counsel of the First Department DDC for his involvement with Krane that caused the conflicts to go unchecked originally.
At that time, it was learned that Krane who clerked for Judith Kaye (and she is one of the most powerful members of the disciplinary committee)had far more conflict with this relation.
The reason, Judith Kaye whose office refused to even answer the calls after the mess began, although they did take submissions from Iviewit, was found to be married to a Proskauer partner Stephen Krane. Both Krane and Stephen Kaye are members of the newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department and this means from the Chief Judge down through all of the disciplinarydepartments they control, New York cannot hear the matters without bias and prejudice. As Krane, Rubenstein, Stephen Krane (and through marriage Judith Kaye) are all conflicted and in fact Iviewit shareholders, their interest should never have come near these complaints, but instead direct involvement is found.
Judith Kaye also has interest in defending her husband and former law clerk from facing these charges as they could end up serving lengthy federal sentences and total loss of assets, especially if a RICO is brought against Proskauer and those allegations have been made to the proper federal investigators of the matters and are being investigated formally.
Yet, you may ask what happened to the Court ordered investigations of Krane, Rubenstein and Joao, the answer is that they were railroaded by the Second Department DDC and Second Department who tried to dismiss them on review and avoid the formal court ordered investigation of five justices. This will now lead to the next 5 United States Supreme Court petitions to be filed by the Iviewit shareholders.
In New York it is futile to try and get the matters investigated as court ordered because the conflicts rise to the top, so we will beginpetitioning the Supreme Court shortly to force formal investigations and force the Bar to docket complaints against their members caught in the fiasco who refuse to file complaints against themselves.
Again, in New York the only court that has heard the matters has ruled for formal investigation to be completed that has never occured. Even at the Second Department Proskauer cannot claim that a court heard their case and ruled in their favor as this is patently false and I would love to see that in the press.
The Second Department tried to wiggle out with a dismissal on review but this means they never heard the case.
What is outrageous is that all of these lawyers accused fear the court room against one pro-se inventor, so they have to use every dirty legal trick to avoid the court, position in conflicts, abuse public offices, and then try to state that those are court room victories, how weak.
The letters they have from the Florida Bar and New York departments trying to say Proskauer was not patent counsel or the likes are worthless, all tendered by people in conflict who have evaded prosecution through clever court politicking and perhaps payola and the likes. Again, it behooves the question of just how high up in the administration and legal community this crime elevates. Further, they have not been cleared in a single formal investigation by state, federal and international authorities.
Ask Proskauer, if Eliot and Iviewit are wrong or liars, why are thier patents in suspension pending charges that Rubenstein and 8 others have committed fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Offices. Why are all the other criminal investigations still underway? Why were you not able to win a decisive court room victory in the allegations of crimes (do not let them bore you trying to convince you the billing case they instituted vindicated them from federal, international or state crimes, those matters were never heard in that court).
Please address these issues with Proskauer. As to being told to take down a news story, it appears they fear the press and public disclosure.
I would consult a lawyer as to what they can do but I do not think they can do much other than try to get a court order to take it down. You are astute to note that if they have nothing to worry about...
Yet, they have a lot to worry about as again the truth being told will bring down the house and the crimes if prosecuted by the goverment are so voliminous as to cause federal prison sentences for all involved. They appear to be using the monies stolen from my technologies to buy off government seats, even within esteemed institutions such as Supreme Courts and state bars, to stave off the inevitable court room day where they have to face the evidences against them.
Kudos to them for holding it off this far, yet it has just entangled so many more people and now to hold off the justice department and other investigators or try to derail those, would take cabinet level officers at the Commerce Dept, the Patent Dept, the FBI, the DOJ and others and this would inevitably lead to a Patentgate for those in the administration and courts found to have violated thier public offices or laws. How high did it go is the question asked by Iviewit shareholders and others and until a conflict free court is found Iviewit does not wish to disclose information relating to the elements we are already aware of and our view of how high this goes.
It is interesting to note, the Florida billing case was judged by Jorge Labarga who is the Florida judge who threw the election of Gore v. Bush to the Supreme Court who decided quite unconstitutionally the President, instead of allowing for a recount of the bogus ballots.
The threads are deep, I do not want your life to be jeopardized, one look at my family's car blown up should scare you, knowing that the fire inspectors of FLorida have already determined incinary devices and accelarants to have been used. I was evicted from my house in Florida last year by a court, Labarga's courthouse, W. Palm Beach, where all of our rights were denied in yet another antict to destroy our ability to bring these matters to the public.
Yet, as you have probably read at our site, I fear no evil and so I pursue with all the others who wait for the truth to be told and our inventions returned. Have you called Crossbow Ventures for their story and what has happened after their meetings with the Inspector General of the Small Business Administration.
r
I would love to see the letters Proskauer sent to both you and Erik.
Best regards ~ Eliot "
r
Source of this Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/
r
More on this Story at
r
MPEG - Proskauer Stealing Inventions - A fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Eliot I. Bernstein
"MPEG - Proskauer Stealing Inventions - A fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Eliot I. Bernstein on Sunday, January 22nd, 2006 @ 09:21PM www.iviewit.tv My name is Eliot Bernstein and I am one of the inventors of the Iviewit inventions.
Many of the quotes here are from me and the proof for many of these claims can be found at the www.iviewit.tv website. Simply go to left navigation bar and click on the Supreme Court button and then click on either Appendix C or Exhibit Gallery.
Although voluminous in size, the exhibits are chalk full of evidence and information regarding the ongoing investigations. Also, much can be learned at the Iviewit blog at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .
In response to this post, Rubenstein and Proskauer took invention disclosures from Iviewit inventors and patented those concepts into their management referral, Brian Utley's name. Rubenstein also contracted Raymond Joao at the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel to file the applications, while Rubenstein and Proskauer handled all of the other intellectual property work, including Rubenstein acting as a board member and opining to many investors on the inventions.
Joao worked at the law firm that Kenneth Rubenstein was at immediately prior to his learning of theIviewit inventions, MLGWS and then after learning of the inventions,Rubenstein instantly jumped to Proskauer, a firm that had no other intellectual property department to speak of and had been a real estate firm since the 1800's.
Proskauer Rose had already been retained and began work for Iviewit prior to Rubenstein leaving Meltzer. In fact, Kenneth Rubenstein and Joao were initially represented as Proskauer attorneys, although they were still at Meltzer. Joao filed patents into his own name while retained by Iviewit to file patents as Rubenstein’s lackey. Joao’s patents contained many of the ideas he and Kenneth Rubenstein learned from the Iviewit inventors, the disclosures and business plans of Iviewit.
It is absurd to think that a patent attorney could file any patents in his name without a thorough conflict waiver from all clients and approval from the patent bar. History has never had a case where the patent attorney ran out and filed a blizzard of patents all crossing into his clients patent applications. Joao was also part of an elaborate scheme to move the patents out ofIviewit and into companies that Proskauer set up that had similar and identical names to the Iviewit companies.
Yet, the shareholder of those companies appears to be Proskauer and others, not the true Iviewit shareholders or inventors.
Iviewit shareholders, including the SBA were totally unaware that these similar companies had been set up and unawarethat that similar patents were being filed into these companies with the false inventor BrianUtley, false owners and assignees.
Joao was discovered patenting ideas into his name and other dubious behavior and he was fired for his actions. Proskauer and Utley referred William Dick of Foley and Lardner to replace Joao, Utley stated that Dick was the IBM Far East patent attorney and his very close personal friend.
The original Proskauer attorney, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq. (recently arrested in Del Ray Beach, FL for DUI with bodily injury) failed to disclose that he, Utley and Dick were involved in intellectual property crimes from Utley's former employ, Diamond Turf Equipment owned by Monte Freidkin of Boca Raton.
Friedkin discovered that patents were walking out the door to Utley's sole (souless) name and fired him. It was not learned until Wheeler and Utley's deposition and Dick's response to the Virginia Bar that the three of them had been involved in the crime.
Wheeler set up the company, Dick wrote the patents from Utley's employer secretly into Utley's name at home and Utley got in and stole the inventions from his employer.
This is the same type of scam that they instituted on Iviewit and again appear to be failing achieving their ends. Dick was Joao's replacement and since it was never disclosed by any of them, the fact of their prior past patent theft attempt, Iviewit was dumbfounded to find this prior history out after learning they were stealing Iviewit inventions.
Moreover, Wheeler and Proskauer submitted a resume on Utley that claimed that Diamond Turf went on to be a huge success do to Utley's inventions, when the truth was that the company was instantly closed by Friedkin after he found Utley stealing from his company while acting as the President of Friedkin’s company.
Utley failed to disclose this, Wheeler and Proskauer never disclosed this when Iviewit retained them and Dick and Foley failed to inform us of Dick's past with this group.
This is a criminal organization of patent thieves, they have a history and they are a danger to inventors, good lawyers everywhere and the United States and foreign countries patent systems.
I am not against patent attorneys filing patents as long as there is a hefty review by the patent department or the USTPO OED, to investigate if those attorney inventions lay claim on any client inventions they may have represented or as in our case misrepresented.
It is very dangerous for patent attorneys to be patenting inventions for themselves while representing client interests, and the obvious collusion amongst patent attorneys to work together to steal each others clients inventions remains a gaping hole.
Yet these guys filed false oaths on applications in others names for inventions they learned while retained by the Iviewit inventors,no excuse can be had for this, this is plain theft, fraud on the patent office, fraud on the Iviewit inventors, the Iviewit shareholders and all the EPO foreign offices and the history of the world and invention.
This is not even close to a patent attorney having a novel idea (although that seems far fetched as attorneys are not typically inventive) and then patenting it in his name with no client involved. Joao has stated that some of his inventions were prior to ours and that Iviewit was in fact infringing on his inventions (he claimed this to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee), yet Joao failed to seek waivers or disclose this in writing or verbally to anyone seems absurd.
I find it further disgusting that MPEG patent inclusion is controlled by a single person, Kenneth Rubenstein, where the temptation is all to obvious.
Patent pooling schemes have been killed historically by the Justice Department for the very reasons that Iviewit complains of, anti-competitive monopolistic practices that violate Sherman and Clayton and almost every antitrust practice. Patent pooling schemes created by lawyers to make money as middlemen also seems to violate ethics.
For instance, how canProskauer and Rubenstein profit from MPEG as counsel for MPEG (as Rubenstein discloses in his deposition at the Iviewit Exhibit gallery) and at the same time take invention disclosure as inventors counsel under Proskauer for review when the patent concepts could completely render MPEG useless, as the Iviewit inventions do, destroying Rubenstein and now PRoskauers pooling schemes?
How can Rubenstein review Iviewit patents for MPEG and at the same time give Iviewit unbiased advice on their patents or control their fate by inclusion or exclusion, while Proskauer and Rubenstein are direct benefactors of the MPEGLA pool profits?
The conflict is as wide as the Grand Canyon, no China Wall, in fact an open door for crime to occur, crimes that violate Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 inventor protections by those entrusted to protect those rights as part of the patent bar. The obvious is happening here, MPEG andProskauer have found a way to review patents as patent counsel and then steal them as patent poolers looking to profit from others inventions.
The first complaint that was filed at the patent office was in an invention format as a joke, not a joke to laugh at, it was appropriately titled, "System and Method for Committing Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Iviewit Inventors". I wonder if the patent department will approve it? lol... This is the only thing that Joao, Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Dick, Foley and Lardner, Brian Utley and others accused, ever invented.
Please feel free to contact me for further information or an interview.
w
Eliot I. Bernstein
InventorIviewit Technologies, Inc.
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://patentgate.blogspot.com "
r
Source of Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/
r
Many of the quotes here are from me and the proof for many of these claims can be found at the www.iviewit.tv website. Simply go to left navigation bar and click on the Supreme Court button and then click on either Appendix C or Exhibit Gallery.
Although voluminous in size, the exhibits are chalk full of evidence and information regarding the ongoing investigations. Also, much can be learned at the Iviewit blog at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .
In response to this post, Rubenstein and Proskauer took invention disclosures from Iviewit inventors and patented those concepts into their management referral, Brian Utley's name. Rubenstein also contracted Raymond Joao at the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel to file the applications, while Rubenstein and Proskauer handled all of the other intellectual property work, including Rubenstein acting as a board member and opining to many investors on the inventions.
Joao worked at the law firm that Kenneth Rubenstein was at immediately prior to his learning of theIviewit inventions, MLGWS and then after learning of the inventions,Rubenstein instantly jumped to Proskauer, a firm that had no other intellectual property department to speak of and had been a real estate firm since the 1800's.
Proskauer Rose had already been retained and began work for Iviewit prior to Rubenstein leaving Meltzer. In fact, Kenneth Rubenstein and Joao were initially represented as Proskauer attorneys, although they were still at Meltzer. Joao filed patents into his own name while retained by Iviewit to file patents as Rubenstein’s lackey. Joao’s patents contained many of the ideas he and Kenneth Rubenstein learned from the Iviewit inventors, the disclosures and business plans of Iviewit.
It is absurd to think that a patent attorney could file any patents in his name without a thorough conflict waiver from all clients and approval from the patent bar. History has never had a case where the patent attorney ran out and filed a blizzard of patents all crossing into his clients patent applications. Joao was also part of an elaborate scheme to move the patents out ofIviewit and into companies that Proskauer set up that had similar and identical names to the Iviewit companies.
Yet, the shareholder of those companies appears to be Proskauer and others, not the true Iviewit shareholders or inventors.
Iviewit shareholders, including the SBA were totally unaware that these similar companies had been set up and unawarethat that similar patents were being filed into these companies with the false inventor BrianUtley, false owners and assignees.
Joao was discovered patenting ideas into his name and other dubious behavior and he was fired for his actions. Proskauer and Utley referred William Dick of Foley and Lardner to replace Joao, Utley stated that Dick was the IBM Far East patent attorney and his very close personal friend.
The original Proskauer attorney, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq. (recently arrested in Del Ray Beach, FL for DUI with bodily injury) failed to disclose that he, Utley and Dick were involved in intellectual property crimes from Utley's former employ, Diamond Turf Equipment owned by Monte Freidkin of Boca Raton.
Friedkin discovered that patents were walking out the door to Utley's sole (souless) name and fired him. It was not learned until Wheeler and Utley's deposition and Dick's response to the Virginia Bar that the three of them had been involved in the crime.
Wheeler set up the company, Dick wrote the patents from Utley's employer secretly into Utley's name at home and Utley got in and stole the inventions from his employer.
This is the same type of scam that they instituted on Iviewit and again appear to be failing achieving their ends. Dick was Joao's replacement and since it was never disclosed by any of them, the fact of their prior past patent theft attempt, Iviewit was dumbfounded to find this prior history out after learning they were stealing Iviewit inventions.
Moreover, Wheeler and Proskauer submitted a resume on Utley that claimed that Diamond Turf went on to be a huge success do to Utley's inventions, when the truth was that the company was instantly closed by Friedkin after he found Utley stealing from his company while acting as the President of Friedkin’s company.
Utley failed to disclose this, Wheeler and Proskauer never disclosed this when Iviewit retained them and Dick and Foley failed to inform us of Dick's past with this group.
This is a criminal organization of patent thieves, they have a history and they are a danger to inventors, good lawyers everywhere and the United States and foreign countries patent systems.
I am not against patent attorneys filing patents as long as there is a hefty review by the patent department or the USTPO OED, to investigate if those attorney inventions lay claim on any client inventions they may have represented or as in our case misrepresented.
It is very dangerous for patent attorneys to be patenting inventions for themselves while representing client interests, and the obvious collusion amongst patent attorneys to work together to steal each others clients inventions remains a gaping hole.
Yet these guys filed false oaths on applications in others names for inventions they learned while retained by the Iviewit inventors,no excuse can be had for this, this is plain theft, fraud on the patent office, fraud on the Iviewit inventors, the Iviewit shareholders and all the EPO foreign offices and the history of the world and invention.
This is not even close to a patent attorney having a novel idea (although that seems far fetched as attorneys are not typically inventive) and then patenting it in his name with no client involved. Joao has stated that some of his inventions were prior to ours and that Iviewit was in fact infringing on his inventions (he claimed this to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee), yet Joao failed to seek waivers or disclose this in writing or verbally to anyone seems absurd.
I find it further disgusting that MPEG patent inclusion is controlled by a single person, Kenneth Rubenstein, where the temptation is all to obvious.
Patent pooling schemes have been killed historically by the Justice Department for the very reasons that Iviewit complains of, anti-competitive monopolistic practices that violate Sherman and Clayton and almost every antitrust practice. Patent pooling schemes created by lawyers to make money as middlemen also seems to violate ethics.
For instance, how canProskauer and Rubenstein profit from MPEG as counsel for MPEG (as Rubenstein discloses in his deposition at the Iviewit Exhibit gallery) and at the same time take invention disclosure as inventors counsel under Proskauer for review when the patent concepts could completely render MPEG useless, as the Iviewit inventions do, destroying Rubenstein and now PRoskauers pooling schemes?
How can Rubenstein review Iviewit patents for MPEG and at the same time give Iviewit unbiased advice on their patents or control their fate by inclusion or exclusion, while Proskauer and Rubenstein are direct benefactors of the MPEGLA pool profits?
The conflict is as wide as the Grand Canyon, no China Wall, in fact an open door for crime to occur, crimes that violate Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 inventor protections by those entrusted to protect those rights as part of the patent bar. The obvious is happening here, MPEG andProskauer have found a way to review patents as patent counsel and then steal them as patent poolers looking to profit from others inventions.
The first complaint that was filed at the patent office was in an invention format as a joke, not a joke to laugh at, it was appropriately titled, "System and Method for Committing Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Iviewit Inventors". I wonder if the patent department will approve it? lol... This is the only thing that Joao, Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Dick, Foley and Lardner, Brian Utley and others accused, ever invented.
Please feel free to contact me for further information or an interview.
w
Eliot I. Bernstein
InventorIviewit Technologies, Inc.
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://patentgate.blogspot.com "
r
Source of Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/
r
Investigating the TheUnited States Patent and Trademark Office - Iviewit Stolen Patent - Eliot Bernstein
"The United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment andDiscipline (OED) Director Harry I. Moatz is now investigating no less than 9 attorneys from several US law firms including Proskauer (main culprit) and Foley & Lardner for fraud upon the United States Patent Office in their signing false oaths on applications.
The attorney Raymond Joao who has the ninety patents in his name (sick) is one of those being investigated, as he was our attorney and was filing the patents for our inventions into his and other false inventors names.
The Commissioner of Patents for the USPTO has suspended several of Iviewit’s applications pending charges of fraud on the US. The FBI is investigating the matter with the USPTO and that is out of their W. Palm Beach office, SpecialAgent Stephen Luchessi. Internationally, the Institute of ProfessionalRepresentatives before the European Patent Office (epi) is now formally investigating the European attorneys involved in filing the foreign applications.
The true inventors were Eliot I. Bernstein, Jude Rosario, Zakirul Shirajee and James F. Armstrong. The main culprit was our attorney, Kenneth Rubenstein who is in charge of the MPEGLA patent pool.
Rubenstein acting as counsel forMPEGLA and Iviewit, never protected the inventors and in fact, seeing that the Iviewit scaling imaging and video inventions trumped his MPEG technologies, decided to attempt to steal the patents with his firm Proskauer Rose, our former law firm. Proskauer and Rubenstein control theMPEG patent pool.
Several other investigations are also under way, including the Small Business Administration, the Inspector General of theSBA is looking into the misuse of SBA funds and the fact that the SBA is the largest investor in our technologies through SBA loans, also leaves them wondering why the inventors and owners of the technologies are falsified.
o
... The MPEG license and the licensor MPEGLA is an anticompetitive monopolistic patent pooling scheme that has misappropriated technology from Iviewit Technologies and therefore acts as a Racketeering and CorruptOrganization.
The primary patent reviewer for MPEG is Kenneth Rubensteinwho is currently under investigation by the United States Patent & Trademark Office for theft of intellectual properties from the Iviewit inventors, including Eliot Bernstein, Jude Rosario, Zakirul Shirajee, James Armstrong, Matthew Mink and Patricia Daniels.
The law firm that Rubenstein works for, Proskauer Rose LLP, has acquired control of MPEG. Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose are under investigation by federal authorities for a host of federal, state and international crimes commissioned in the theft of the Iviewit intellectual properties. Proskauer and Rubenstein were patent counsel for the Iviewit inventors while they were controlling MPEG and acting as its counsel, they then stole the Iviewit technologies from the inventors the represented, bundled them into a anticompetitive pool, constituting a racketeering organization and have tried to consistently destroy Iviewit and inventor Eliot Bernstein and his family and friends.
Rubenstein’s former partner Raymond Anthony Joao, Esq., now has applied for ninety patents in his own name, (yes the patent attorney has patented the inventions in his own name, itshould not even be possible but…) many stolen directly from the inventions he and Rubenstein were supposed to patent for Iviewit.
Foley and Lardner and partners of their firm, including former IBM patent counsel William J. Dick are also involved in perpetrating the crimes against Iviewit and likewise are also federal, state and international investigations for their part in the attempted theft of their client Iviewits’ inventions.Foley and Lardner, a large intellectual property firm should also be regarded as a potential patent law firm involved in theft of patents from inventors. Members of Proskauer, Christopher Wheeler, Esq. and two formerIBM employees, William Dick and Brian Utley formerly had tried to steal inventions from another Florida company, Diamond Turf Equipment, which led to that company being forced out of business, costing the owner millions of dollars in losses.
It appears that many of the patent thieves have worked together in unison to steal other inventions and this should be a stark warning that coincidence is not an element but these are targeted attacks on inventors’ intellectual properties. As with most patent pooling schemes, this MPEG scheme created by Rubenstein and Proskauer to steal inventions from inventors will eventually be exposed and the Justice Departmetn will press charges for criminal actions.
How will our government then return the inventions to the true and proper inventors and close this hole in the system is still up in the air, so stay tuned forIviewit or Patentgate updates.
The Iviewit patents and trademarks have been suspended by the Commissionerof Patents at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and licenses taken for the scaling video and imaging patents paid to MPEG for stolen technologies may result in further licensing costs to those who take MPEG licenses for such technologies when the Iviewit patents are granted. Death threats and an attempted car bombing of inventor Bernstein have recently been executed and several more investigations have resulted.
Is MPEG LA a criminal organization stealing inventions from small inventors and then perpetrating crimes against the inventors to destroy them or put them outof business, it appears so. If you are submitting patents to MPEG and are a small inventor it would be wise to first visit the Iviewit site atwww.iviewit.tv or read of inventor Bernstein’s struggle to regain his technologies from MPEG and it’s accomplices at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .
Without the Iviewit scaling inventions MPEG technology licenses would be worthless, as without scaling technologies for video they would be limited in ability to create new age video for low and high bandwidth applications.
Digital camera’s and other technologies using scaled imaging may also be infringing upon the Iviewit inventions and many companies, including several Fortune 500 companies, have violated their confidentiality agreements with Iviewit.
The Iviewit inventions have been heralded worldwide by leading engineers as Holy Grail inventions that have revolutionized the digital imaging and video world.
If you are appalled by the crimes described at the Iviewit site, please feel free to leave your comments http://patentgate.blogspot.com or send an email to iviewit@iviewit.tv and we will publish your comments and concerns.
The theft is a federal offense and these crimes have constituted charges of fraud not only on Iviewit and the Iviewit shareholders but crimes against the United States and Foreign Nations.
The crimes could lead to a loss of faith in the United States Patent Office and the attorneys that are registered with the patent office to protect inventors. Such degradation of this most esteemed institution could lead inventors to seekprotection of their inventions in other countries. Imagine the United States losing inventions to other countries because inventors fear thatnot only will their inventions be stolen but criminal organizations such as MPEGLA operated by criminals such as Kenneth Rubenstein will then try to kill them for their inventions or destroy their lives and companies. This is truly the greatest patent story ever told and as American citizens we must, must, prevent this type of legal crime, committed by attorneys, to protect the Constitution.
The Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 specifically states that “Congress shall have the power To…promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Without this right guaranteed to small inventors and further where the very system designed to protect such rights has become embroiled in the violation of such rights, we must demand full investigation of all threads of this crime and the criminal organization cloaked in law that have learned how to usurp this fundamental concept of democracy.
...Thank you ~ Inventor Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit companies I close with a quip from Mark Twain who also believed strongly in the value of the patent system. In his book, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Hank Morgan, the Connecticut Yankee, he said “…the very first official thing I did in my administration-and it was on the very first day of it too-was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab and couldn’t travel anyway but sideways and backwards."
r
More on the Stolen Patents of Eliot I. Bernstein and the IviewIt company
r
The attorney Raymond Joao who has the ninety patents in his name (sick) is one of those being investigated, as he was our attorney and was filing the patents for our inventions into his and other false inventors names.
The Commissioner of Patents for the USPTO has suspended several of Iviewit’s applications pending charges of fraud on the US. The FBI is investigating the matter with the USPTO and that is out of their W. Palm Beach office, SpecialAgent Stephen Luchessi. Internationally, the Institute of ProfessionalRepresentatives before the European Patent Office (epi) is now formally investigating the European attorneys involved in filing the foreign applications.
The true inventors were Eliot I. Bernstein, Jude Rosario, Zakirul Shirajee and James F. Armstrong. The main culprit was our attorney, Kenneth Rubenstein who is in charge of the MPEGLA patent pool.
Rubenstein acting as counsel forMPEGLA and Iviewit, never protected the inventors and in fact, seeing that the Iviewit scaling imaging and video inventions trumped his MPEG technologies, decided to attempt to steal the patents with his firm Proskauer Rose, our former law firm. Proskauer and Rubenstein control theMPEG patent pool.
Several other investigations are also under way, including the Small Business Administration, the Inspector General of theSBA is looking into the misuse of SBA funds and the fact that the SBA is the largest investor in our technologies through SBA loans, also leaves them wondering why the inventors and owners of the technologies are falsified.
o
... The MPEG license and the licensor MPEGLA is an anticompetitive monopolistic patent pooling scheme that has misappropriated technology from Iviewit Technologies and therefore acts as a Racketeering and CorruptOrganization.
The primary patent reviewer for MPEG is Kenneth Rubensteinwho is currently under investigation by the United States Patent & Trademark Office for theft of intellectual properties from the Iviewit inventors, including Eliot Bernstein, Jude Rosario, Zakirul Shirajee, James Armstrong, Matthew Mink and Patricia Daniels.
The law firm that Rubenstein works for, Proskauer Rose LLP, has acquired control of MPEG. Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose are under investigation by federal authorities for a host of federal, state and international crimes commissioned in the theft of the Iviewit intellectual properties. Proskauer and Rubenstein were patent counsel for the Iviewit inventors while they were controlling MPEG and acting as its counsel, they then stole the Iviewit technologies from the inventors the represented, bundled them into a anticompetitive pool, constituting a racketeering organization and have tried to consistently destroy Iviewit and inventor Eliot Bernstein and his family and friends.
Rubenstein’s former partner Raymond Anthony Joao, Esq., now has applied for ninety patents in his own name, (yes the patent attorney has patented the inventions in his own name, itshould not even be possible but…) many stolen directly from the inventions he and Rubenstein were supposed to patent for Iviewit.
Foley and Lardner and partners of their firm, including former IBM patent counsel William J. Dick are also involved in perpetrating the crimes against Iviewit and likewise are also federal, state and international investigations for their part in the attempted theft of their client Iviewits’ inventions.Foley and Lardner, a large intellectual property firm should also be regarded as a potential patent law firm involved in theft of patents from inventors. Members of Proskauer, Christopher Wheeler, Esq. and two formerIBM employees, William Dick and Brian Utley formerly had tried to steal inventions from another Florida company, Diamond Turf Equipment, which led to that company being forced out of business, costing the owner millions of dollars in losses.
It appears that many of the patent thieves have worked together in unison to steal other inventions and this should be a stark warning that coincidence is not an element but these are targeted attacks on inventors’ intellectual properties. As with most patent pooling schemes, this MPEG scheme created by Rubenstein and Proskauer to steal inventions from inventors will eventually be exposed and the Justice Departmetn will press charges for criminal actions.
How will our government then return the inventions to the true and proper inventors and close this hole in the system is still up in the air, so stay tuned forIviewit or Patentgate updates.
The Iviewit patents and trademarks have been suspended by the Commissionerof Patents at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and licenses taken for the scaling video and imaging patents paid to MPEG for stolen technologies may result in further licensing costs to those who take MPEG licenses for such technologies when the Iviewit patents are granted. Death threats and an attempted car bombing of inventor Bernstein have recently been executed and several more investigations have resulted.
Is MPEG LA a criminal organization stealing inventions from small inventors and then perpetrating crimes against the inventors to destroy them or put them outof business, it appears so. If you are submitting patents to MPEG and are a small inventor it would be wise to first visit the Iviewit site atwww.iviewit.tv or read of inventor Bernstein’s struggle to regain his technologies from MPEG and it’s accomplices at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .
Without the Iviewit scaling inventions MPEG technology licenses would be worthless, as without scaling technologies for video they would be limited in ability to create new age video for low and high bandwidth applications.
Digital camera’s and other technologies using scaled imaging may also be infringing upon the Iviewit inventions and many companies, including several Fortune 500 companies, have violated their confidentiality agreements with Iviewit.
The Iviewit inventions have been heralded worldwide by leading engineers as Holy Grail inventions that have revolutionized the digital imaging and video world.
If you are appalled by the crimes described at the Iviewit site, please feel free to leave your comments http://patentgate.blogspot.com or send an email to iviewit@iviewit.tv and we will publish your comments and concerns.
The theft is a federal offense and these crimes have constituted charges of fraud not only on Iviewit and the Iviewit shareholders but crimes against the United States and Foreign Nations.
The crimes could lead to a loss of faith in the United States Patent Office and the attorneys that are registered with the patent office to protect inventors. Such degradation of this most esteemed institution could lead inventors to seekprotection of their inventions in other countries. Imagine the United States losing inventions to other countries because inventors fear thatnot only will their inventions be stolen but criminal organizations such as MPEGLA operated by criminals such as Kenneth Rubenstein will then try to kill them for their inventions or destroy their lives and companies. This is truly the greatest patent story ever told and as American citizens we must, must, prevent this type of legal crime, committed by attorneys, to protect the Constitution.
The Constitution in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 specifically states that “Congress shall have the power To…promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”
Without this right guaranteed to small inventors and further where the very system designed to protect such rights has become embroiled in the violation of such rights, we must demand full investigation of all threads of this crime and the criminal organization cloaked in law that have learned how to usurp this fundamental concept of democracy.
...Thank you ~ Inventor Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit companies I close with a quip from Mark Twain who also believed strongly in the value of the patent system. In his book, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Hank Morgan, the Connecticut Yankee, he said “…the very first official thing I did in my administration-and it was on the very first day of it too-was to start a patent office; for I knew that a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab and couldn’t travel anyway but sideways and backwards."
r
More on the Stolen Patents of Eliot I. Bernstein and the IviewIt company
r
www.DeniedPatent.com r
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
