IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Surf with Vision

[ Home ] [ ABOUT ] [ COMPANY ] [ FINANCIAL INFO ] [ INVENTORS ] [ PRESS ] [ PRESS ROOM ] [ PRODUCTS ] [ SUPREME COURT ] [ VIDEO GALLERY ] [ IMAGE GALLERY ] [ SENATE CULT BILL ] [ The Fight for the Grail ] [ Research ] [ Iviewit Blogoshpere ]

Patent Filings / US District Court Docket / US Court of Appeal Docket / Court Evidence Exhibits

WARNING!!  INVENTOR CAR BOMBED IRAQI STYLE

Scroll down home page for more and more of the Greatest Patent Story Ever Told

NOTE THAT INVENTOR BERNSTEIN'S CAR, THE MINIVAN, WAS BLOWN UP WITH A BOMB ACCORDING TO FIRE INVESTIGATOR RICK LEE OF THE BOYNTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT.  SO POWERFUL IT BLEW UP 3 CARS NEXT TO IT.

NOTE - THAT IS WHERE THE KIDS WOULD HAVE BEEN SITTING ONLY A FEW HOURS LATER

TRY VIEWING THE CAR BOMB IMAGES WITH IVIEWIT ZOOM TECHNOLOGY ~ Click Here

WARNING!
TO THOSE INTERESTED OR THINKING OF BECOMING INVOLVED IN THE IVIEWIT CRIMES ~ WITH THE BOMBING OF THE INVENTORS CAR, THE CHARGES FOR THE HEREIN DESCRIBED STATE, FEDERAL AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMES FOR BOTH PERPETRATORS AND ACCOMPLICES REGARDING THE PATENT THEFTS AND VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICES, HAVE NOW ELEVATED TO ATTEMPTED MURDER and according to Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin the Case is about MURDER!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Beginning of the End ~ New York Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings

September 24, 2009 - Second Hearing

Public Hearing: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT:     The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

PURPOSE:    This hearing will review the mission, procedures and level of public satisfaction with the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts as well as the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

ORAL TESTIMONY BY:

Witness List for Judiciary Hearing 9/24/09 The Judicial & Attorney Disciplinary Process in the State of New York

1. Richard Kuse of New City, NY
2. Victor Kovner of the Fund for Modem Courts
3. Douglas Higbee of Mamaroneck, NY
4. Judith Herskowitz of Miami Beach, FL
5. Peter Gonzalez of Troy, NY
6. Andrea Wilkinson of Rensselaer, NY
7. Maria Gkanios of Mahopac, NY
8. Dominic Lieto of Mahopac, NY
9. Regina Felton Esq of Brooklyn, NY
10. Kathryn Malarkey of Purchase, NY
11. Nora Renzuli, Esq. of Staten Island, NY
12. Stephanie Klein of Long Beach, NY
13. Ike Aruti of Rosedale, NY
14. Terrence Finnan of Keene, NY
15. Gizella Weisshaus, NY
16. Eliot I. Bernstein of Boca Raton, FL
17. Suzanne McCormick & Patrick Handley of NY

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the entity that is legally responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of attorneys in New York State. The Appellate Division Departments have created grievance committees that are charged with the investigation of complaints against attorneys. Within the First Judicial Department the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division investigates complaints against attorneys. The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by the State Constitution and is charged with investigating complaints against Judges and Justices of the Unified Court System.

According to the 2009 Report of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, there were 1,923 complaints filed in 2008. Yet of these complaints only 262 were investigated and of those, 173 were dismissed. This hearing will examine the processes and procedures that are followed by the various agencies charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules and regulations that must be followed by the Judiciary and the Bar in the State of New York. It will also evaluate public satisfaction with the disciplinary process.

ELIOT BERNSTEIN NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING TESTIMONY PART 1 of 2

ELIOT BERNSTEIN NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING TESTIMONY PART 2 of 2

Eliot Bernstein Testimony at NY Judiciary Committee Hearing ~ Real Player Clip - Download

Christine C. Anderson Testimony at NY Judiciary Committee ~ Real Player Clip - Download

Testimony of Eliot Bernstein @ 4.02.08 in this resurfaced video of the entire NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings, also @

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQLll5hmjs&feature=player_embedded

Hand Held Video of Eliot only Testimony Backup

The Lawsuit All Starts with A Whistleblower Complaint and Iviewit is Marked Legally Related to that Case by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin.  In the following video of a June 08, 2009 Judiciary Committee Hearing in New York, Christine C. Anderson (my hero) gives the real jiggy on the NY State Court Corruptions, she is first to testify after the Department Goons.  In her Original Complaint she mentions Iviewit and the Onion Peels henceforth.

Part 1

Part 2 New York Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings

February 13th 2009 Letter to President Barack Hussein Obama II to enjoin The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General ~ Department of Justice

WARNING, p. Stephen Lamont has been terminated from acting on behalf of Iviewit or Eliot Bernstein and has been reported for certain alleged criminal misconduct to THE state of new York and other authorities.  If Lamont offers you shares of stock or any other inducement involving Eliot Bernstein or Iviewit he is committing further fraud

--------

Word from former Iviewit CEO and Shareholder P. Stephen Lamont

A Background of the Iviewit Inventions

By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former Acting CEO of Iviewit (counsel advised all Iviewit executives to resign their posts and work along side Iviewit rather than within Iviewit, as the former Board of Directors, Counsel and Accountants, disbanded without requisite notice to Shareholders in violation of law, thereby leaving massive liability and exposure) and a significant shareholder in Iviewit.  With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, I appallingly write at the cross current, by and between parties described herein, pattern of frauds, deceits, and misrepresentations that run so wide and so deep that it tears at the very fabric of what has become to be know as free commerce in this country, and, in the fact that it pertains to inventors rights, tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States more fully described below.   I write to you with, Eliot I. Bernstein, who was factually present throughout all of these events and so has contributed to assure the veracity of the statements herein and provide credible witness to the events described herein prior to my joining Iviewit.  Mr. Bernstein is the main inventor of the technologies, inventions which he claims to have come from divine origin with a divine purpose.

On or about 1997, Iviewit’s founder, Eliot I. Bernstein and other inventors, came upon inventions pertaining to what industry experts have heretofore described as profound shifts from traditional techniques in video and imaging then overlooked in the annals of digital video and imaging technologies.  Factually, the main video technology is one of capturing a video frame at a, including but not limited to, 320 by 240 frame size (roughly, ¼ of a display device) at a frame rate of one (1) to infinity frames per second (“fps” and at the twenty four (24) to thirty (30) range commonly referred to as “full frame rates” to those skilled in the art). Moreover, once captured, and in its simplest terms, the scaled frames are then digitized (if necessary), filtered, encoded, and delivered to an agnostic display device and then scaled to a full frame size of, including but not limited to, 1280 by 960 at the full frame rates of 24 to 30 fps. The result is, when combined with other proprietary technologies, high quality video at bandwidths of 56 or more Kbps to 6 Mbps per second, at a surprising seventy five percent (75%!) savings in throughput/bandwidth on any digital delivery system such as digital terrestrial, cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a similar 75%! savings in storage on mediums such as digital video discs “DVD’s” and the hard drives of many consumer electronic devices.  Also, these savings result in a 75%! decrease in the necessary processing power to encode the video, making old school concepts of parallel processors obsolete and allowing the process of encoding to occur on even a laptop.  Therefore, the video technology opened new markets therefore in both low bandwidth video as is found on cell phones and the Internet to the other end of the spectrum to high end video such as HDDVD, etc. changing even the way television was created, transmitted and viewed, a change from interlacing to the new Iviewit scaling processes, allowing cable companies to increase channel throughput by 75%!   Moreover, on the imaging side, the Iviewit inventions are used on almost every digital camera and present screen design and other devices that utilize the feature of “digital zoom”, whereby the imaging technology provided a way to zoom almost infinitely on a low resolution file with clarity, solving for pixilation that was inherent in the prior art.  Furthermore, industry observers who benefited from the Iviewit disclosures have gone on to claim "you could have put 10,000 engineers in a room for 10,000 years and they would never have come up with these ideas…”  These engineers similarly claimed, to a broad audience, that the technologies were "priceless", the "Holy Grail" of the digital imaging and video world.

Still further, it should be clear, as it relates to the inventions, that we are not talking about some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, where the inventors went back to square one to create a wholly novel elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video and image frames to unlock former bandwidth constraints, led to new processing and storage capabilities and took the video and imaging worlds to a  new dimension.

Moreover, if these inventions become the subject of say a court ordered injunction while investigations are ongoing, it would preclude the use of the technologies while the courts resolve these matters, similar to the recent case almost brought in the RIM/Blackberry matter.  Although dwarfed in comparison, that injunction would have shut Blackberry down to users had the parties not settled the matters, by way of tremendous pressure from the Court, the courts being on of the biggest users of the technology.  The results of an injunction of the Iviewit technologies would be catastrophic to the country in that the product recall alone would be devastating to commerce, shutting down video across the Internet, recalling low bandwidth cell phones, recalling digital camera’s with digital zoom, halting the transmission of 75% of cable channels, recalling medical devices that use scaled zoom, recalling technologies on the Hubble Space Telescope and other government uses, such as flight and space simulators, advanced weapons systems, etc.  These matters are of tantamount importance to federal and international commerce in countless ways, making the job of resolving the crimes against Iviewit a matter of national security concern unprecedented in the history of invention and law.

Furthermore, initially, and early in my tenure, rumors began swirling around the company with finger pointing and all from Florida to Los Angeles wherein it caught the jet stream and arrived very soon in New York of alleged breaches of confidentiality pertaining to Iviewit technology, transfers of trade secrets, and, even in certain circumstances, the knowing and willful invention fraud by the outright switching of signature pages of patent filings by early patent counsels.  Additionally, during my tenure, I was in possession of an executed patent application pertaining to Iviewit’s core imaging technology with the inventors of Bernstein and Shirajee, when, out of thin air, and just prior to filing, with no notice or authorization, such patent application witnesses the addition of a one Brian G. Utley as an inventor, and an individual who could not have been farther from the heat of the inventive stage of the imaging technology.

Still further, I submit that at the first disclosures of the inventions, patent counsel, including Kenneth Rubenstein (also sole patent evaluator and legal counsel to MPEG LA), who had spent half a lifetime attempting and failing to procure technologies for the transmission of full screen, full frame rate video across a variety of transmission networks, and who during the Iviewit disclosures had been known to state “[I] missed that,” and “[I] never thought of that,” and “[This] changes everything,” or words to those effects, Rubenstein was perhaps so fearful that Iviewit would partner with other proprietary technologies across the video value chain that it could wipe his carefully crafted patent pools off the face of the map, therefore, the Iviewit inventions HAD to be converted to MPEGLA, LLC to preserve those pools and convert his client Iviewit's technologies to his pools, of course blocking Iviewit at the same time from market using typical anti-trust tactics commonly associated with patent pools of the past and the reason the Justice Department has typically broken such pools up, as they are anti-competitive, monopolistic in nature. 

That was the first step, with the second step, through the direct and indirect introductions of Iviewit, with executed confidentiality agreements (“NDA’s”), to some five hundred potential licensees by colleagues of counsel, being the proliferation of Iviewit disclosures across a wide array of potential licensees and competitors.  In addition to tying and bundling the technologies into his patent pool licensing scheme, again in violation of most of the anti-trust laws.

Following along, we arrive at the point in the past when Iviewit had thought the Iviewit inventions had been filed at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office and that everyone had begun to use it, when past management in Iviewit and patent counsel were found writing patents in patent counsels name and other non-inventor management names,  in addition to the intentional unauthorized changes of inventors, owners and assignees. Later, as Arthur Andersen conducted an audit on behalf of investor Crossbow Ventures whose funds were 2/3 Small Business Administration loans, evidence emerged of a corporate shell game involving multiple, unauthorized, similarly named corporate formations, unauthorized stock swaps and unauthorized asset transfers that resulted in the core patent applications assigned to entities that may have only one shareholder, perhaps the limited liability partnership of Proskauer Rose or other unauthorized holders, including the alleged perpetrating patent counsel, perhaps, with a view towards resurrecting the backbone technologies at some future point only converted illegally as their own.

Moreover, in a September 2006 letter to Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY 18th) I wrote that in the above series of allegations, Iviewit is confident that your Office will find a reasonable certainty that Messrs. Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. of Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Esq. of Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel and William J. Dick, Esq., Steven Becker, Esq., and Douglas Boehm, Esq. of Foley and Lardner, all Iviewit Patent Counsel and present or former members of the distinguished Bar of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, designed and executed, either for themselves or others similarly situated, the deceptions, improprieties, and, even in certain circumstances, outright misappropriation by the disingenuous redirection of the disclosed Iviewit techniques by: (i) burying the critical elements of the inventions in patent applications filed on behalf of the true Iviewit Shareholders & Inventors; (ii) allowing the unauthorized use of Iviewit’s inventions under NDA’s without enforcement of said NDA’s; (III) filing patent applications of their own or others based on the Iviewit inventions into false inventors names and illegally set up corporations; (IV) submitting knowingly false statements and falsified documents done with intent to commit fraud on the USPTO (a federal offense), Iviewit’s shareholders, and the Iviewit Inventors.  [It should be noted here that these attorneys and others are now under formal investigation by patent offices worldwide that have been ongoing for several years].  

Furthermore, in that same Rep. Lowey letter, that as a result of the series of allegations enclosed, and although it is clear to Iviewit that the role of Congress is to make law not to enforce law, Iviewit finds it reasonable that your Office: (i) shall find the requisite merit to initiate Congressional investigations; (ii) shall pass these allegations to a Congressional staff attorney in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for further investigation; (iii) shall instruct said staff attorney to institute a formal Congressional investigation, including questioning, requests for records, and other information from all parties involved; (iv) shall refer said attorney’s findings back to you as a Representative in the Congress of the United States; (v) shall present such findings to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for determinative review; and finally (vi) shall witness said Congressional committee to urge disciplinary action against the alleged offending attorneys by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or other organization, agency, or court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Lastly, Iviewit often asks itself, among other things,  “Why did the Hon. Jorge LaBarga of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, Florida deny Iviewit’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim for Damages (concerning the aforementioned allegations)” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida - The Florida Bar (‘TFB’) dismiss the complaint against Christopher C. Wheeler, Esq. (‘Wheeler’ and, a non-patent attorney, a main protagonist of the above referenced allegations) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida deny Iviewit’s Petition to begin the immediate investigation of the Wheeler complaint (when TFB admitted in writing that the answer to the Wheeler complaint  was authored by an attorney, Matthew Triggs of Proskauer Rose, in flagrant violation of his public office obligations)” and “Why did the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee stall Iviewit’s complaint against Rubenstein and Joao despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why, despite the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department’s Court Order (unanimously voted on by five Justices) to begin the immediate investigation of Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane (former NYSBA President & Proskauer partner who handled complaints against Joao and Rubenstein while maintaining undisclosed roles at the First Department) and Joao, for conflicts and violations of New York Supreme Court public offices, did the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee charged with conducting an immediate investigation dismiss on review the Rubenstein and Joao complaints and stating that they were ‘not under the jurisdiction’ of the First Department Court” [thus no witnesses were contacted, no evidence was tested and the attorneys did not even have to respond formally or informally to the charges against them] and "When conflicts were discovered at the Second Department with Krane why were complaints refused by the Second Department to be formally docketed against their members caught in conflict, those members denying complaints against themselves???" and  “Why did the Virginia Bar Association dismiss the Dick complaint despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that the United States Patent Office had suspended the Iviewit patents based on a Foley and Lardner intellectual property docket submitted to the VBA that had factually false and misleading information regarding patent inventors, owners and assignees” and “Why did the Supreme Court of the United States decline to hear Iviewit’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the Florida Court’s decision, which acted to block Iviewit from filing complaints against Florida Supreme Court officers caught in conflicts of interest and violations of public offices” and “why did John Doll & Jon Dudas, Commissioners' of Patents at the USPTO, fail to correct the inventors, and refuse to take or return Iviewit’s call or respond to formal office filings, including a petition filed more than three years ago by Iviewit and its lead investor Crossbow Ventures/SBA, which led to the suspending of patent applications pending ongoing investigations” and Iviewit finds itself answering “THAT IT IS ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE TOTAL DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THE PATTERN OF FRAUDS, DECEITS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT RUN SO WIDE AND SO DEEP THAT IT TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF WHAT HAS BECOME TO BE KNOW AS FREE COMMERCE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND, IN THE FACT THAT IT PERTAINS TO INVENTORS RIGHTS, TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

Lastly, take to heart this following series of events that, from Tokyo to Munich and all places in between, has been commonly described as THE GREATEST PATENT STORY EVER TOLD while at the same time becoming one of the most bungled crimes in history, perhaps the largest crime ever perpetrated in the history of crime itself; crimes constituting further a treasonous series of actions to rob the United States Commerce Department, the country's greatest jewel, the United States Patent & Trademark Offices, usurping Free Commerce as we know it in America in the process!  The cover-up, well to say the least, constitutes violation after violation of sworn oaths by government officials entrusted to uphold justice, elevating  perhaps throughout the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches, creating a government of criminal activity, a "Culture of Corruption"  (paralleling the reality you now live in) all to deny due process and procedure, evade prosecution of the complaints filed against them and stave off the inevitable federal prison time for their actions, as further described herein.

WARNING!!!

READING THE CONTENTS OF THIS SITE MAY MAKE YOU PATENT YOUR INVENTIONS IN FOREIGN NATIONS V. THE UNITED STATES

PART I - THE HOLY GRAIL INVENTIONS

The Company continues to pursue an aggressive intellectual property strategy. I-View-It has protected its enabling Intellectual Properties by filing US Patent Pending Applications, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) International Applications, US Provisional Patent Pending Applications, Japanese Applications, Copyrights, Trademarks, Trade Secrets (we thinks, we are still trying to determine what was filed and what has been stolen, investigations ongoing). Below is summary of the key processes of the pending Intellectual Property Pool.  Iviewit is a recognized innovator in the digital capture, encoding and distribution of video and images with patents pending, or in this case, patents suspending and is currently focusing on three of its core IP assets:

Mathematical Scaling Formula For Encoding & Playback of Video

The Patent Pending process that utilizes scaled down video encodes that when transmitted to an end user produce full-screen video representations at an amazing 75% lower bandwidth than prior technologies. This process enables the delivery of distortion-free rich media at full-screen, full frame resolution with normal TV-equivalent frame rates at extremely low bandwidths, ideal for mediums such as the Internet, previously thought impossible. At high bandwidths, the process provides superior processing efficiencies and creates 75% smaller file sizes for digital distribution (i.e. DVD's, HDDVD, VCD's, SVCD's, etc.), an enormous savings over prior compression technologies.  The scaled processes have effected all forms of hardware and software along the video value chain and have paved the way for low bandwidth video cell phones and allowed large scale Internet video.  On the high of the bandwidth spectrum the technologies have transformed gaming from pong like graphics to the lifelike ones as common now in the Play Station, X-BOX, etc. The technologies having already had a profound effect on many scientific, medical and military processes affecting society in the endless uses of digital imaging and video technologies.

Mathematical Scaling Formula For Encoding & Viewing Images with Super Smooth Zoom & Pan Capabilities

Creates high definition, user controlled "super" zoom and pan capability levels without macro blocking and pixilation. The image scaling process is likely applicable to every known screen used in imaging, making the list of potential applications - and revenue streams - literally endless.  From space telescopes, to digital camera's, to X-ray's, to MRI's, to space simulators, to satellite imaging tech's like Google Maps, etc. this set of technologies has taken the pixilation out of images when zooming

Combined Iviewit video and imaging processes to create a user interface allowing camera control and zoomable video streams.

Duh - Combined I View It imaging and video processes to create a user controlled video or television environment with super zoom and pan applications.

Ellen DeGeneres Speaks Out on Iviewit Technology - "Use Iviewit for the Sake of the Country"
Bet Ellen had no idea at the time how profound her statement would be and how much of the country is really at stake over it.

Ellen DeGeneres Speaks Out on Iviewit Technology - "Use Iviewit for the Sake of the Country"

COME JOIN IVIEWIT IN THE GREATEST PATENT STORY EVER TOLD & PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM THE TERRORISTS WITHIN.

WARNING!

This site uses technologies that may or may not be protected by the United States Patent & Trademark Office & European Patent Office

HAS CORRUPTION REACHED OUR MOST ESTEEMED COMMERCE DEPARTMENT?  WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO PROTECT THE INVENTIONS AND INVENTORS? 

Patents suspended indefinitely, investigations lingering for five years and a Patent Office that refuses to respond to official filings?

United States Patent & Trademark Office Filings

PATENT SUSPENSION NOTICE 1

-------------------------------------------

PATENT SUSPENSION NOTICE 2

-------------------------------------------

List of Patents Pending & Patents Suspending:
 

PCT/US00/21211

System & Method for Providing an Enhanced
Digital Image File

WIPO LINK

PCT/US00/15602

System & Method for Video Playback Over a
Network

WIPO LINK

PCT/US00/15406

WIPO LINK (Where did this go???)

15406 Part 1 Attachment

15406 Part 2 Attachment

15406 Part 3 Attachment

PCT US00/15408

System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced
Digital Video File

WIPO LINK (Where did this go???)

PCT/US00/15405

System & Method for Providing an Enhanced
Digital Video File

WIPO LINK(Where did this go???)

PCT US00/07772

Apparatus & Method for Producing Enhanced
Digital Images

WIPO LINK (Where did this go???)

EPO 00938126.0

System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced
Digital Video File

Japan 2001 502364

System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced
Digital Video File

Japan 2001 502362

System & Method for Streaming an Enhanced
Digital Video File

Korea PCT US00 15408

PART II - THE CRIMES AND CRIMINALS IN THE ATTEMPT TO STEAL THE IVIEWIT INVENTIONS

ELLEN G. WHITE

The greatest want of the world is the want of men, --men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall. -Education, p. 57(1903)

Complaint filed with the DOJ - OIG after the FBI lost the Iviewit case file and the Car Bombing files.  Iviewit was told the agent handling the matters had retired early with the case files! 

2007 04 20 Letter to the Department of Justice ~ Office of Inspector General, Inspector General Glenn Fine, regarding missing Federal Bureau of Investigation files and missing United States Attorney Files regarding the Iviewit Matters

This complaint was filed after the US Attorney Office's claimed they had no case file for the case the FBI had prior presented to them.

2007 06 14 Letter to the Department of Justice ~ Office of Professional Responsibility, H. Marshall Jarrett, at the request of the DOJ-OIG, regarding missing Iviewit case files at the FBI & US Attorney offices

Letter from the DOJ - OPR stating they have begun review of the matters. At this level of Justice, if the Justice Department tries to wiggle from the obligation to investigate and prosecute, it would take Alberto Gonzales or whomever replaces him to evade all due process and procedure in these matters and that order could only come from his remaining supporter, the President, the Decider and those who pull puppet strings.  With Gonzales as credible as a perjurer, liar and possibly a war criminal, one would assume that these are the reasons the Bush Regime can not let him go.  At that point, the country will become embroiled in Patentgate sooner or later, as it would take 20 years of the patent life and beyond to avoid the matters without due process, a non-reality. 

2007 07 16 Letter from the Department of Justice ~ Office of Professional Responsibility regarding beginning review of the Iviewit matters

December 15, 2007 Iviewit 1.5 Billion Federal Complaint Filed in the United States District Court - New York Southern District -- Filed in response to Whistleblower case revealing New York Supreme Court Officers Covered-Up Ethic Cases like Iviewit, as reported in NY Times and NY Law Journal below.

Filed Complaint @

 http://www.iviewit.tv/20071215usdcsnycomplaint.pdf

United States District Court - New York Sothern District
Case No. 07 CV 11196

The MAYBE NOT SO Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin or the MOST HONORABLE JUDGE ON HER WAY TO THE SUPREME COURT

NEW YORK POST ~ August 17, 2006

'JUNIOR' SINGS SOPRANO August 17, 2006 -- John "Junior" Gotti finally sang - but it was "Happy Birthday" to a federal judge. Gotti helped Manhattan federal Judge Shira Scheindlin celebrate her 60th birthday by serenading her from his seat at the defense table yesterday. "I led the attack," Gotti said outside of court. "Everyone was saying, 'We're going to sing, we're going to sing,' and then they started chickening out." The bizarre and unusual birthday celebration was carried out in the courtroom - which was mysteriously closed to the public - before jury selection in Gotti's racketeering trial resumed for a third day. The mob scion was joined singing, "Happy Birthday Judge Scheindlin," by at least one of his defense lawyers, members of the prosecution team and court personnel. Participation wasn't exactly optional after the judge's courtroom deputy instructed everyone present in the courtroom to participate. Gotti and Scheindlin have been through a lot together over the past year. The former Gambino leader is facing his third trial for racketeering after two previous juries failed to reach a verdict - with all of the trials taking place in Scheindlin's courtroom. Later in the day the judge got some chuckles when she agreed to excuse a potential juror who had plans to travel to Paris to celebrate her mother's 60th birthday. "I'm particularly sympathetic to 60th birthdays," Scheindlin said. Scheindlin's mini-bash, which lacked gifts and cake, was a private affair. When a reporter tried to enter the courtroom as the singing was about to begin, deputies with the U.S. Marshals Service said the judge's deputy had instructed them to bar the public for 10 minutes, but they could not say why. Courtrooms are typically closed to the public only to protect the identity of cooperating witnesses, undercover agents and the victims of sex crimes, or for national-security concerns. Legal experts raised eyebrows at the fact that Scheindlin allowed the impromptu fete to occur at all. "This is not a major violation of judicial ethics. It's a pimple on the trial," said David Luban, law professor and legal ethicist at Georgetown University. "I think she ought to have stopped it. I think any trial judge is perfectly capable of cutting them off if something is not proper. It casts doubt in the judge's own partiality if the judge allows the defendant to sing 'Happy Birthday,' " said Luban. "It's a bizarre situation in the middle of the criminal trial singing 'Happy Birthday.' It's inappropriate," said Christopher Murray, a civil-rights attorney based in Garden City, L.I. Opening statements in the trial could take place as soon as this afternoon.

______________________________________

From Wikipedia

Judge Scheindlin presided over three trials of John Gotti Jr. ("Junior"), each of which ended in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.[6] The principle charge against Gotti in the trials was racketeering conspiracy stemming from Gotti's alleged management of the Gambino crime family following the incarceration and death of his father, John Gotti Sr. (the "Dapper Don"). "On September 20, 2005, the jury acquitted him of securities fraud and hung 11-1 for conviction on racketeering charges that included the assault on Sliwa. His re-trial on the remaining charges the following March also ended in a mistrial, with the jury hung 8-4 for acquittal. At the third trial involving the Sliwa assault, prosecutors convinced 12 jurors that Junior had ordered the kidnapping but failed to convince them that he had engaged in criminal activity after 1999 and the jury again deadlocked on the racketeering charges, this time voting 8-4 for conviction."

_______________________________________

IVIEWIT AMENDED COMPLAINT - ONE TRILLION DOLLARS IN DAMAGES

                   Second  Circuit Court of
                            Appeals

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Court of Appeals Docket #:       08-4873-cv
Nsuit :  3470              STATUTES-RICOH

Bernstein v. Appellate Division First              Filed   10/3/08
Department Disciplinary Committee

Appeal     SDNY (NEW YORK CITY)
from:

Case type information:

      Civil

      Private

      None

Lower court information:

    District:      07-cv-11196

    Trial Judge:   Shira A. Scheindlin

    MagJudge:

    Date Filed:      12/12/07

    Date order/judgement:     8/8/2008

    Date NOA filed:  9/5/2008

Fee status: Paid

Panel Assignment:

Panel:

Date of decision:

Prior cases:  NONE

Current cases NONE

Official Caption 1/
                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

--------------------------------------
Docket No. [s] : 08-4873 -cv

Eliot I. Bernstein, individually,  P. Stephen Lamont, on
behalf of Shareholders of Iviweit Holdings, Inc.,
Iviewit Technologies, Inc., Uview.com, Inc., Iviewit.com,
 Inc., I.C., Inc., Iviewit.com LLC, Iviewit LLC, Iviewit
Corporation, Iviewit, Inc., and Patent Interest Holders,


	Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

Appellate Division First Department Departmental,
Thomas J. Cahill, in his official capacity, in his
individual capacity,  Joseph  Wigely, in his official
capacity, in his individual capacity,  Catherine O`Hagan
Wolfe, in their officical capacity, in their individual
capacity,  Paul  Curran, in their official capacity, in
thier individual capacity,  Martin R. Gold, in his
individual capacity, in their official capacity,  Angela
M Mazzarelli, in her official capacity, in their oficial
capacity,  Richard T. Andrias, in his official capacity,
in their official capacity,  David B. Saxe, in his
official capacity, in their individual capacity,  David
Friedman, in his official capacity, in their individual
capacity,  Luis A. Gonzales, in his official capacity,
in their individual capacity,  Appellate Division Second
Department Departmenta,  Lawrence F. DiGiovanna, in his
official capacity, in their individual capacity,  Diana
Maxfield Kearse, in his official capacity, in their
individual capacity,  James E. Peltzer, in his official
capacity, in their individual capacity,  A. Gail
Prudenti, in his official capacity, in their individual
capacity,  Steven C. Krane, in his official capacity, in
their individual capacity,  Hon. Judith S. Kaye, in his
official capacity, in their individual capacity,
Kenneth  Rubenstein,  Estate of Stephen Kaye,  Proskauer
Rose LLP,  Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breistone LLP,
Lewis S. Meltzer,  Raymond A. Joao,  Foley Lardner LLP,
Michael C. Grebe,  William J. Dick,  Douglas A. Boehm,
Steven C. Becker,  State of New York Commission of
Investigation,  Lawyers Fund for Client Protection of
the State,  The Florida Bar,  Lorraine Christine Hoffman,
 in her official capacity, in her individual capacity,
Eric  Turner, in her official capacity, in her
individual capacity,  John Anthony Boggs, in her
official capacity, in her individual capacity,  Kenneth
Marvin, in her official capacity, in her individual
capacity,  Thomas  Hall, in her official capacity, in
her individual capacity,  Deborah  Yarborough,  Virginia
State Bar,  Andrew H. Goodman, in his officail capacity,
in his individual capacity,  Noel  Sengel, in his
officail capacity, in his individual capacity,  Mary W.
Martelino, in her individual capacity,  John  Does,

	Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------------------------



Authorized Abbreviated Caption 2/
--------------------------------------
Docket No. [s] : 08-4873 -cv

Bernstein  v.  Appellate Division First Department
Disciplinary Committee

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   2

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

--------------------------------------



---------------------------------------------------------
-----------------
1/ Fed. R. App. P. Rule 12 [a] and 32 [a].
2/ For use on correspondence and motions only.

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   3

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Deborah  Yarborough

Defendant-Appellee

John  Does

Defendant-Appellee

The Florida Bar

Defendant-Appellee

Thomas  Hall

Defendant-Appellee

Eliot I. Bernstein             Eliot I. Bernstein

Plaintiff-Appellant            n/a

                               2753 Northwest 34th Street
                               Boca Raton , FL , 33434

                               561-245-8588

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   4

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Estate of Stephen Kaye         Joanna Frances Smith Esq.

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]
                               Proskauer Rose LLP

                               1585 Broadway
                               New York , NY , 10036

                               212-969-3437

Kenneth  Rubenstein            Joanna Frances Smith Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Proskauer Rose LLP             Joanna Frances Smith Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Steven C. Krane                Joanna Frances Smith Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Raymond A. Joao                John W. Fried Esq.

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]
                               Fried & Epstein  LLP

                               1350 Broadway
                               New York , NY , 10018

                               212-268-7111

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   5

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Douglas A. Boehm               Kent K. Anker Esq.

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]
                               Friedman Kaplan Seiler &
                               Adelman LLP
                               1633 Broadway
                               New York  , NY , 10019

                               212-833-1100

Foley Lardner LLP              Kent K. Anker Esq.(See above)

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Michael C. Grebe               Kent K. Anker Esq.(See above)

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Steven C. Becker               Kent K. Anker Esq.(See above)

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

William J. Dick                Kent K. Anker Esq.(See above)

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

A. Gail Prudenti               Monica Anne Connell Esq.

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   6

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]
                               Attorney General of the State
                               of New York
                               120 Broadway
                               New York , NY , 10271

                               212-416-8965

Andrew H. Goodman              Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Angela M Mazzarelli            Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Appellate Division First       Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
Department Departmental        above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Appellate Division Second      Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
Department Departmental        above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe        Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

David  Friedman                Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   7

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

David B. Saxe                  Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Diana  Maxfield Kearse         Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Eric  Turner                   Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Hon. Judith S. Kaye            Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

James E. Peltzer               Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

John Anthony Boggs             Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   8

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Joseph  Wigely                 Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Kenneth  Marvin                Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Lawrence F. DiGiovanna         Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Lawyers Fund for Client        Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
Protection of the State of     above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Lorraine Christine Hoffman     Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Luis A. Gonzales               Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Martin R. Gold                 Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page   9

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Mary W. Martelino              Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Noel  Sengel                   Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Paul  Curran                   Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Richard T. Andrias             Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

State of New York Commission   Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
of Investigation               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Thomas J. Cahill               Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See
                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Virginia State Bar             Monica Anne Connell Esq.(See

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page  10

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

                               above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

P. Stephen Lamont              P. Stephen Lamont

Plaintiff-Appellant            n/a

                               35 Locust Avenue
                               Rye , NY , 10580

                               914-217-0038

Appellate Division First       Patrick J. Walsh Esq.
Department Departmental
Defendant-Appellee             [ n ]
                               U.S. Attorney Generals Office,
                               State of New York
                               120 Broadway
                               New York  , NY ,  10007

                               212-416-6197

Lewis S. Meltzer               Richard M. Howard Esq.

Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]
                               Law Offices of Richard M. Howard

                               190 Willis Avenue
                               Mineola , NY , 11501

                               516-747-0300

Meltzer Lippe Goldstein &      Richard M. Howard Esq.(See
Breistone LLP                  above)
Defendant-Appellee             [ LD n ]

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page  11

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page  12

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

   10/3/08  APPELLANT   Eliot Bernstein,  P. Lamont,
            Copy of notice of appeal and district court
            docket entries on behalf of  APPELLANT
            Eliot Bernstein,  P. Lamont,  filed.
            [Entry date Oct  6 2008  ]  [AJ]

   10/3/08  Note: This appeal was PRO SE when filed.
            [Entry date Oct  6 2008  ]  [AJ]

   10/3/08  Copy of receipt re: payment of docketing fee
            filed on behalf of  APPELLANT   Eliot
            Bernstein,  P. Lamont,  .RECEIPT #662193
            [Entry date Oct  6 2008  ]  [AJ]

   10/3/08  Copy of district court order dated 08/08/08
            RECEIVED.   [Entry date Oct  6 2008  ]  [AJ]

   10/3/08  Record on appeal filed. (Original papers of
            district court.)  Volume(4)    [Entry date
            Oct  6 2008  ]  [AJ]

   10/6/08  Instructional Forms sent to Pro Se litigant
             [Entry date Oct  6 2008  ]  [AJ]

10/6/08		Acknowledgement of Appeal Lamont

10/6/08		Docketing Letter_2nd Circuit Lamont- Missing Pages

   10/8/08  Record on appeal received in records room
            from team (4 vols).   [Entry date Oct  8
            2008  ]  [RW]

  10/14/08  Notice of appeal acknowledgment letter from
            P. Lamont received.   [Entry date Oct 16
            2008  ]  [AJ]

  10/15/08  Scheduling order #1 filed. Appellants brief
            due  11/17/2008. Appellees brief due
            12/17/2008. Ready week  2/2/2009.   [Entry
            date Oct 15 2008  ]  [AJ]

  10/15/08  Notice to counsel and pro se: scheduling
            order #1   [Entry date Oct 15 2008  ]  [AJ]

  10/16/08  The new case manager assigned to this case
            is: Holmes, Deborah.   [Entry date Oct 16
            2008  ]  [JM]

  10/23/08  APPELLANT   Eliot Bernstein,  motion
            received.    [Entry date Oct 23 2008  ]  [DH]

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page  13

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

  10/23/08  Appellant  Eliot Bernstein motion for a 60 -
            90 day extension of time to file briefs,
            filed with proof of service.   [Entry date
            Nov 19 2008  ]  [DH]

  11/17/08  Notice of Appearance Filed by   P. Lamont on
            behalf of P. Stephen Lamont (Orig in acco,
            copy to Calendar and Admissions Dept.).
            [Entry date Nov 18 2008  ]  [DH]

  11/17/08  APPELLANT   P. Lamont,  brief and joint
            appendix with proof of service filed.
            [Entry date Nov 18 2008  ]  [DH]

  11/19/08  Copy of Appellant`s Motion for an extension
            of time served on Appellee`s by Case Manager.
               [Entry date Nov 19 2008  ]  [DH]

11/20/08	Court of Appeal Extension Letter, Not Docketed

  11/24/08  Notice to parties regarding court order
            dated 11/24/08   [Entry date Nov 24 2008  ]
            [AS]

  11/24/08  Order FILED GRANTING motion extended time by
            Appellant  Eliot Bernstein, endorsed on
            motion dated 10/23/2008. IT IS HEREBY
            ORDERED that Appellant`s motion an extension
            of time is GRANTED.Appellant`s brief and
            appendix shall be filed on or before
            February 17, 2009. No further extensions of
            time is GRANTED . Appellee`s brief is due on
            or before March 19, 2009. The appeal shall
            be heard no earlier than the week of April 4,
             2009 Before on  RKW. Endorsed by JP
            Administrative Attorney   [Entry date Nov 24
            2008  ]  [AS]

  11/25/08  Papers <Notice of Receipt of Appellant's
            Motion > from Kent K. Anker, received.
            [Entry date Dec  2 2008  ]  [DH]

   12/3/08  Letter dated December 2, 2008 from Attorney
            Gregg M. Mashberg regarding briefing
            schedule for appellee's, received.  (All
            Appellee's briefs are due as scheduled March
            19, 2009).   [Entry date Dec  4 2008  ]  [DH]

   12/3/08  Letter dated December 3, 2008 from Stephan M.
             Hall, Assistant Attorney General, who will
            be representing the Virginia State Bar
            Employees, received.   [Entry date Dec  5
            2008  ]  [DH]

  12/17/08  Motion for  admission pro hac vice (Stephen
            M. Hall), filed with proof of service.
            [Entry date Dec 18 2008  ]  [DH]

  12/19/08  Notice to counsel/pro se re:  Motion Order
            dated 12/19/08.   [Entry date Dec 19 2008  ]
             [DH]

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page  14

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

  12/19/08  Order FILED GRANTING motion for admission
            pro hac vice by  endorsed on motion dated
            12/17/2008.  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
            motion is GRANTED.  Attorney Hall is
            admitted pro hac vice.  Endorsed for the
            Court by JP, Motions Staff Attorney.
            [Entry date Dec 19 2008  ]  [DH]

  12/31/08  Letter dated December 5, 2008 from Attorney
            John W. Fried, informing the Court of his
            change of address, received.   [Entry date
            Dec 31 2008  ]  [DH]

  12/31/08  Request for address change for  John W.
            Fried, Esq. new address:  Fried & Epstein
            LLP, Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue,
             Ste. 7612, New York, NY 10018..

               [Entry date Dec 31 2008  ]  [DH]

12/31/08  Letter dated December 5, 2008 from Attorney
            John W. Fried, informing the Court of his
            change of address, received.   [Entry date
            Dec 31 2008  ]  [DH]

  12/31/08  Request for address change for  John W.
            Fried, Esq. new address:  Fried & Epstein
            LLP, Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Avenue,
             Ste. 7612, New York, NY 10018..

               [Entry date Dec 31 2008  ]  [DH]

12/31/08	US Court of Appeals Docs and Docket Report

   1/30/09  Appellant  Eliot Bernstein motion for
            "extension of time to file briefs, stay of
            the appeal, conflicts, docketing and other
            errors and other requests," filed with proof
            of service.   [Entry date Jan 30 2009  ]
            [DH]

   1/30/09  Appellant  Eliot Bernstein motion for stay
            of appeal, conflicts, dockting and other
            erors and requests,  filed with proof of
            service.   [Entry date Feb 18 2009  ]  [DH]

    2/6/09  Notice to counsel/pro se re:  Motion Order
            dated 2/6/09.   [Entry date Feb  6 2009  ]
            [DH]

    2/6/09  Order FILED DENYING motion for an extension
            of  time and to stay the appeal by Appellant
             Eliot Bernstein, endorsed on motion dated
            1/30/2009.  IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the
            motion by pro se Appellant for a fifteen to
            eighteen month extension of time to file
            brief or a stay of the appeal is DENIED.
            Before:  RKW, CJ.  Endorsed for the Court by
            JF, Administrative Attorney.   [Entry date
            Feb  6 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/10/09  Appellant P. Stephen Lamont papers in
            opposition to motion to Appellant's
            Bernsteins extension fo  time filed with
            proof of service.   [Entry date Feb 13 2009
            ]  [DH]

   2/13/09  Letter/motion dated February 13, 2009 via
            fax from appellant requesting a temporary
            stay of the submission  until the White
            House and Oval Office the United States
            Attorney General and other Necessary parties
            can be heard by conference call, received.
            [Entry date Feb 13 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/17/09  Letter dated February 16, 2009 from
            appellant regarding his temporary stay sent
            via fax, received.   [Entry date Feb 17 2009

Docket as of   February 28, 2009  2:33 am              Page  15

                                                       INDIV

                                                       OPEN

             ]  [DH]

02/17/09	Second Circuit Holmes request for stay to file appeal and confirmation deliveries low

   2/17/09  Letter dated February 17, 2009 via fax from
            Appellant Bernstein, received.   [Entry date
            Feb 24 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/18/09  Notice to counsel/pro se re:  Motion Order
            dated 2/18/09.   [Entry date Feb 18 2009  ]
            [DH]

   2/18/09  Order FILED REFERRING motion to stay the
            appeal, conflicts, docketing and other
            errors and requests  by Appellant  Eliot
            Bernstein, endorsed on motion dated
            1/30/2009.  This motion other than the
            extension request, is sent to the panel that
            will hear the apeal.  Endorsed for the Court
            by CJM, Sup, Staff Attorney.   [Entry date
            Feb 18 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/19/09  Order filed stating, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
            that pro se Appellant's motion for
            reconsideration of the order denying a
            fifteen to eighteen month extension of time
            to file brief or stay of the appeal is
            DENIED.  However, Appellant is accorded a
            grace period until February 27, 2009.  If a
            brief is not filed by that date, the Clerk's
            Office is instructed to dismiss the appeal
            without further notice from the court.
            Appellant is advised that a motion seeking
            reconsideration or other relief from this
            order does not stay the due date.
            Appellee's brief is due on or before March
            30, 2009.  The appeal shall be heard no
            earlier than the week of May 18, 2009.
            Before:  RKW, CJ.  Endorsed for the Court by
            JF, Administrative Attorney.   [Entry date
            Feb 19 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/19/09  Notice to counsel/pro se re:  Order dated
            2/19/08.   [Entry date Feb 19 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/19/09  Scheduling order #2 filed. Appellants brief
            due  2/27/2009. Appellees brief due
            3/30/2009. Ready week  5/18/2009.   [Entry
            date Feb 19 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/19/09  Notice to counsel/pro se re:  Scheduling
            Order #2 dated 2/19/09.   [Entry date Feb 19
            2009  ]  [DH]

   2/19/09  Appellant P. Stephen Lamont papers in
            opposition to Appellant`s Eliot Bernstein's
            motions dated January 30, 2009,  filed with
            proof of service.   [Entry date Feb 20 2009
            ]  [DH]

   2/26/09  APPELLEE    Virginia State Bar,  Andrew
            Goodman,  Mary Martelino,  Noel Sengel,
            Lizbeth L. Miller, Commonwealth of Virginia

            (Virginia Defendants-Appellees), LETTER
            BRIEF filed with proof of service.   [Entry
            date Feb 27 2009  ]  [DH]

Docket as of   February 28, 2009  2:33 am              Page  17

   1/30/09  Appellant  Eliot Bernstein motion for
            "extension of time to file briefs, stay of
            the appeal, conflicts, docketing and other
            errors and other requests," filed with proof
            of service.   [Entry date Jan 30 2009  ]
            [DH]

20090227	Apellant Eliot Bernstein Brief

Docket as of   February 06, 2009  3:05 am              Page  15

Docket as of   March 13, 2009     3:57 am              Page  16

            (Virginia Defendants-Appellees), LETTER
            BRIEF filed with proof of service.   [Entry
            date Feb 27 2009  ]  [DH]

   2/27/09  APPELLANT   Eliot Bernstein,  brief RECEIVED.
                [Entry date Mar  4 2009  ]  [DH]

    3/2/09  APPELLANT   Eliot Bernstein,  motion
            received. Hard copies being forwarded by
            appellant.   [Entry date Mar  6 2009  ]  [DH]

    3/3/09  Notice of Appearance Filed by   Eliot
            Bernstein on behalf of himself. (Orig in
            acco, copy to Calendar and Admissions Dept.).
                [Entry date Mar  5 2009  ]  [DH]

    3/4/09  Notice of Appearance Filed by   Kent Anker
            on behalf of Foley & Lardner LLP, Steven C.
            Becker, Douglas A. Boehm, William J. Dick
            and Michael W. Grebe. (Orig in acco, copy to
            Calendar and Admissions Dept.).    [Entry
            date Mar  5 2009  ]  [DH]

    3/5/09  Notice of Appearance Filed by   Gregg
            Mashberg on behalf of Proskauer Rose LLP,
            Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane and the
            Estate of Stephen Rackow Kaye. (Orig in acco,
             copy to Calendar and Admissions Dept.).
            [Entry date Mar  5 2009  ]  [DH]

    3/6/09  Appellant  Eliot Bernstein motion for
            Emergency investigation of Proskauer Rose
            Defendants involvement in the Allen Stanford
            financial...  filed with proof of service.
            [Entry date Mar  6 2009  ]  [DH]

    3/9/09  APPELLANT   Eliot Bernstein,  brief RECEIVED.
                [Entry date Mar 10 2009  ]  [DH]

    3/9/09  Appellee's papers in opposition to
            Appellant's motion for Emergency relief,
            filed with proof of service.   [Entry date
            Mar  9 2009  ]  [DH]

   3/10/09  APPELLANT   Eliot Bernstein,  defective
            filed. Notice sent to
             party to correct by 3/16/09.    [Entry date
            Mar 10 2009  ]  [DH]

   3/10/09  Instructional Forms sent to Pro Se litigant
             [Entry date Mar 10 2009  ]  [DH]

   3/10/09  Notice to counsel/pro se re:  Motion Order
            dated 3/10/09.   [Entry date Mar 10 2009  ]
            [DH]

   3/10/09  Order FILED DENYING motion for Emergency to
            investigate the involvement of Proskauer
            Rose by Appellant  Eliot Bernstein, endorsed
            on motion dated 3/6/2009.  IT IS HEREBY
            ORDERED that the emergency motion by pro se
            Appellant Bernstein to investigate the
            involvement of Proskauer Rose in recent
            financial scandals and for other relief is
            DENIED.  Before:  DAL, CJ.  Endorsed for the
            Court by JF, Administrative Attorney.
            [Entry date Mar 10 2009  ]  [DH]

   3/11/09  Notice of Appearance Filed by   John Fried
            on behalf of Raymond A. Joao. (Orig in acco,
            copy to Calendar and Admissions Dept.).
            [Entry date Mar 12 2009  ]  [DH]

Docket as of   March 13, 2009     3:57 am              Page  18

OCTOBER 31, 2007 NEW YORK LAW JOURNAL EXPOSES CORRUPTION AT NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY - LAWSUIT CLAIMS IVIEWIT COMPLAINTS AND OTHERS AGAINST ATTORNEY'S AND MEMBERS OF THE FIRST DEPARTMENT WERE BURIED!!!

 

NOVEMBER 1, 2007 ~ NEW YORK TIMES - EXPOSES CORRUPTION AT NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY, LAWSUIT FILED CLAIMS THOMAS CAHILL AND OTHERS BURIED COMPLAINTS AND CLAIMS IVIEWIT MATTERS WERE ALSO BURIED!!!

Petition to Feinstein to submit legislation to suspend patent pending applications of Iviewit for an indefinite period while investigations are ongoing.

CONGRESS.ORG ARTICLE 1 - PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO PROTECT INVENTORS

OR

february 02, 2007 senate bill for changes to patent law to protect inventor rights in situations of fraud and conspiracy against the united states which endanger inventor rights.  Submitted to the honorable united states senator Dianne Feinstein

Article relating to uncovering of corruption with the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill.  Cahill who aided and abetted by blocking three Iviewit complaints against Proskauer partners, Kenneth Rubenstein (MPEGLA LLC Counsel), Steven C. Krane (former New York State Bar Association) & Raymond Joao, from investigation.  Then he got caught in conflicts and violation of public offices that led to a Supreme Court of New York Court Order for immediate investigation of the three Proskauer partners and a Special Inquiry investigation of Cahill.

July 21, 2007 Expose Corrupts Courts Article 1

CONGRESS.ORG - ARTICLE 2 - NEW YORK SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY CHIEF COUNSEL THOMAS CAHILL TO RESIGN AND RELATED SCANDAL TO HIS INVOLVEMENT IN AIDING AND ABETTING IN THEFT OF FUNDS FROM 9/11 RED CROSS FUND

More corruption with Cahill, see above note.

Expose Corrupt Courts Article 2 - Corruption regarding Thomas Cahill, formerly at the Supreme Court of New York First Department Disciplinary Committee

The Office of Professional Representatives Before the European Patent Office,  who regulates attorney conduct, sends documents to Iviewit found in the EPO files while investigating the Iviewit matters, clearly distinguishing them as fraudulent in comparison to the documents filed by Iviewit counsel, Martyn Molyneaux.  Missing exhibits and altered document text in EPO files.

CONGRESS.ORG - ARTICLE 3 - Matters of Iviewit: Irrefutable Fraud at the European Patent Office

April 9, 2007 ~ iviewit response to irrefutable fraudulent documents in the European patent office files

April 5, 2007 institute of professional representatives before the European patent office - matters regarding fraudulent patent documents tendered by the  European patent office showing irrefutable fraud on epo patent submissions

Chart showing ongoing investigations, derailed investigations and court actions.

ongoing investigations - exhibit to Feinstein bill

Chart showing how complaints have been blocked using violations of public offices, the hierarchy of conflicts and who and how they relate.  Those highlighted in green are not yet found denying due process and procedure

Denial of Due Process flow chart

Article relating to uncovering of corruption with the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill.  Cahill blocked three Iviewit complaints against Proskauer partners, Kenneth Rubenstein (MPEGLA LLC Counsel), Steven C. Krane (former New York State Bar Association) & Raymond Joao, from investigation and got caught in conflicts and violation of public offices.  That led to a court order for investigation of the three Proskauer partners and a Special Inquiry Investigation of Cahill.

July 27, 2007 expose Corrupt courts article regarding iviewit & the denial of due process in NY

Nita Lowey, sends Lamont shareholder complaint to Dingell, as the Commerce Department is centrally involved in the matters and the matters have importance to survival of free commerce in America.  Dingell has his counsel review and himself and moves the matters to the Judiciary Committee for investigation.

January 11, 2007 PRESS RELEASE!!!!

John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th), Chair, House Energy & Commerce Committee alerts & forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee, Iviewit's Affirmed Written Statement, submitted by former CEO P. Stephen Lamont, concerning fraud on the USPTO and Dept of Commerce

or

http://mmdnewswire.com/content/view/1116/

or

Hard Copy

Nita Lowey's letter moving the Iviewit matters to Dingell.

January 07, 2007 PRESS RELEASE!!!!

http://www.i-newswire.com/pr85494.html

or

January 06 2006 Iviewit Press Release - Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY 18th) requests investigation of thefts of Iviewit intellectual properties by Chair, House Energy & Commerce, John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th).  In a letter dated November 28th 2006 from Lowey to Lamont: “I received your letter requesting that the Energy & Commerce Committee investigate the allegations you have made regarding the theft of patents from Iviewit Technologies, Inc...I forwarded your letter to the incoming Chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. John Dingell. …I trust that Mr. Dingell will give this matter the consideration that it deserves.

Iviewit former CEO, P. Stephen Lamont at Alberto Gonzales hearings protesting the loss of the Iviewit case files by the FBI and US Attorney offices, look for the guy with the Iviewit T-Shirt at 14 & 30 secs into video