Marc S. Dreier SEC Investigation and Conviction - Excerpts from Eliot Bernsteins SEC Complaint.

"" The SEC Indictment and Conviction of Marc S. Dreier as it relates to Proskauer, comes from the connection to Patent Attorney Raymond A. Joao.

Joao initially introduced to Iviewit as a Proskauer partner by Wheeler, along with Rubenstein, when they were actually with Meltzer at that time.

Once investors in Iviewit learned Rubenstein and Joao were not with Proskauer as represented, Proskauer partner Christopher C. Wheeler (“Wheeler”) claimed they were transferring to Proskauer shortly.

Rubenstein then transferred almost overnight and Joao was to follow after he finished work at Meltzer but since he was actually writing the patent applications under Rubenstein’s direction for Iviewit, Iviewit had to take an additional retainer to Proskauer’s with Meltzer until Joao transferred.

However, Joao never transferred to Proskauer Rose and during his first year of work for Iviewit, it was discovered that Joao allegedly was not filing timely and correct patent applications and patenting inventions in his own name.

Joao now under ongoing investigation at the US Patent Office and FBI, ordered for by the First Dept and yet to be completed and more. Wheeler then claimed that Proskauer was beginning an investigation of Joao, ironically, and ignoring the conflicts this presented, as Joao was Proskauer, Wheeler and Rubenstein’s referral.

Christopher Wheeler then suggested his good friend William Dick (“Dick”) of Foley to replace Joao for filing the patents and reviewing Joao’s work, continuing under Rubenstein’s oversight, as described in the Wachovia Private Placement already exhibited herein.

What Christopher Wheeler failed to disclose to Iviewit is that Dick had been involved immediately prior to being retained by Iviewit, with both Wheeler and another Proskauer/Wheeler referral to Iviewit, Brian G. Utley, formerly employed by IBM and working with Dick, Utley then becoming President of Iviewit, in another allegedly failed Intellectual Property theft.

The prior attempted Intellectual Property heist was against another Florida businessperson, Philanthropist Monte Friedkin of Diamond Turf Equipment Co. and whereby all those addressed herein should take note of the Prior History of these alleged patent thieves, clearly indicating that this is an organized and repeated crime against inventors.

The SEC should note that Wheeler presented a falsified resume for his friend Utley to Iviewit that not only failed to disclose the attempted theft but also failed to disclose, and in fact materially falsified Utley’s resume concealing the facts by claiming Utley left the company Diamond Turf a success due to his innovations.

Factually, the attempted IP theft, according to Friedkin, led to the firing of Utley by Friedkin and Friedkin’s immediately closing the business and taking a multimillion-dollar loss directly due to the scheme perpetrated by Utley, Dick and Wheeler. Dick also failed to disclose this fact when joining Iviewit.

In both Utley and Wheeler’s depositions, already exhibited herein, both Utley and Wheeler contradict each other’s statements when confronted with the Friedkin information and Dick in his Virginia Bar Response to a complaint filed against him further contradicts both Wheeler and Utley regarding the Friedkin events. Supplementary evidence confirming these claims can be found on the Iviewit homepage at www.iviewit.tv .

When Dick replaced Joao, the press reported that Joao claimed he now had 90+ patents in his own name, many allegedly directly lifted from Iviewit.

Joao then joined the Marc S. Dreier law firm of Dreier & Baritz. This new information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Dreier Ponzi Scheme in light of this new evidence, and in fact, the monies of the Dreier Ponzi allegedly directly relate to royalties from sales and licensing of Joao’s stolen Intellectual Properties.

The Dreier Ponzi is alleged to be another money-laundering scheme concocted by the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.

The SEC should also cease distribution of assets in the Dreier Ponzi, especially where the Trustee appears conflicted with Proskauer and again the court actions may be further attempts by these all too clever law firms to abscond with funds in further illegal legal actions and Fraud on the Court. ""

Where is the SEC and Mary Schapiro In All This ?

Click Here for Full SEC Complaint by Iviewit Technologies, Eliot I. Bernstein.

posted here by
investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Raymond Joao Opposition in STOLEN Iviewit Patent Case - Raymond A. Joao, Esq., Pro Se

Where is Raymond Joao's Counsel?

It seems that Raymond A. Joao is Raymond A. Joao, Esq., Pro Se. So who is Representing Raymond Anthony Joao on that AT&T Patent Infringement Lawsuits he has Launched?

Was Raymond A. Joao's Counsel Removed ?

Raymond Joao seems to be his own lawyer, his own patent lawyer and a patent thief

Raymond A. Joao, Esq., Pro Se ?

Where is John Walter Fried Esq. and Fried and Epstein?

Click Here for Raymond Joao Opposition in Iviewit Case

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Patent Theft, iViewIt Technologies, Joao Opposition Iviewit, John Walter Fried Esq., Patent Attorney Corruption, Raymond A. Joao

Raymond A. Joao Complaint

" Raymond A. Joao, (hereinafter "Joao"), believed to be a resident of the State of New
York, and who at various times relevant hereto was initially misrepresented to the
Company as a partner of Proskauer Rose LLP (hereinafter “Proskauer”) and was factually
a partner of Meltzer Lippe Goldstein and Schlissel, and who provided legal services to
the Company.

Moreover, beginning on or about September of 1998, the Company, through its agent and
principal, Eliot I. Bernstein ("Bernstein"), began negotiations with Proskauer with regard
to Proskauer providing legal services to the Company the purpose of which was to
develop and market specific technologies developed by Bernstein and two others, which
technologies allowed for the scaling, enlargement, panning and zooming of digital
images and video without degradation to the quality of the digital image due to what is
commonly referred to as “pixelation”, the delivery of digital video using proprietary

scaling techniques, a combination of the image pan and zoom techniques and video
scaling techniques, and the remote control of video and image applications.

Furthermore, Bernstein engaged the services of Proskauer and in turn Joao, among
others, through an engagement letter a true copy of which I attach herein as Exhibit “A”,
to obtain multiple patents and oversee US and foreign filings for such technologies
including the provisional filings for the technologies as described above, and such other
activities as were necessary to protect the intellectual property.

Additionally, upon information and belief, Raymond Joao upon viewing the technologies developed by Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit Company, and held by the Company, realized the significance of the technologies, its various applications to communication networks for distributing video data and images and for existing digital processes, including, but not limited to digital cameras, digital video disks (DVD), digital imaging technologies for medical purposes and digital video.

And that Kenneth Rubenstein designed and executed, sometimes for himself or others similarly situated, deceptions, improprieties, and, even in certain circumstances, outright malfeasances by the disingenuous insertion of his own interests or the interests of third parties, who were other clients of Proskauer Rose and/or Meltzer Lippe Goldstein and Schlissel, between the Company, as his client and together with its disclosed techniques, and the ultimate end users of its future OEM and other licensees, to the detriment and
damage of the Company.

Many of the malfeasances against the Company have also
involved fraud against the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Specifics of General Complaint

Where the Company employed Raymond Joao, Proskauer Rose and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel for purposes of representing the Company to obtain multiple patents and oversee foreign filings for such technologies including the provisional filings for the technologies as
described above, and that pursuant to such employment, Raymond Anthony Joao, Proskauer Rose and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel owed a duty to ensure that the rights and interests of the Company were protected, Raymond Joao, Proskauer Rose LLP and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel neglected that reasonable duty of care in the performance of legal services in that they:
r
a. Failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the intellectual property of the Company
was protected; and,

r
b. Failed to and/or inadequately completed work regarding patents, copyrights and
trademarks; and,

r
c. Failed to list proper inventors of the technologies based on improper legal advise by
Proskauer, and in turn Joao in his lead technological role, that foreign inventors could not
be listed until their immigration status was adjusted leading to further erroneous billings
by Proskauer for frivolous immigration work. This resulted in the failure of the patents to
include their rightful and lawful inventors; and,

r

d. Failed to ensure that the patent applications for the technologies, contained all
necessary and pertinent information relevant to the technologies and as required by law;
and,
r

e. Falsified billing statements and transmitted documents, and,
r
f. Falsified patent documents and changed the contents of patents prior to filing so as to
make the Company patents weak and inaccurate, so as to file patents in his own name
that would succeed upon the Companies patents failing. That Mr. Joao who was
contracted to procure patents for the Company has now applied for 70+ patents in his
own name, many of which appear to be ideas learned while representing the Company.
r
g. That due to the discovery of many of the above described events the Company’s lead
investor Crossbow Ventures (a referral of Proskauer Rose) of West Palm Beach, Fla.,
pulled funding on the Company.
e
Lastly, the negligent actions of Raymond Anthony Joao, MLGS and Proskauer Rose resulted in and were the proximate cause of loss to the Company; today, the Company’s processes are believed to be on digital camera’s, DVD’s and virtually all Internet and Broadcast streams of video; true copies of exhibits and witnesses are available on request and/or I will, on behalf of the Company, present them according to proof at commencement of investigation into
this General Complaint.

Due to the highly sensitive nature of the patent and copyright materials, exhibits and
witnesses will be provided once formal protections have been established in regard to this
complaint. "
r
Eliot Bernstein
Iviewit.com, Inc

Source of Post
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2002%2025%20Joao%209th%20district%20original%20complaint.pdf

t

www.DeniedPatent.com

r

r