Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein Letter to New York Senate Judiciary Committee and Chairman, Senator John L. Sampson Regarding US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. Criminal Allegations Requiring Your Immediate Attention … Revelation of a “Cleaner” at New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Ethics Committee, Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA’s … More like Gotti Trial on 26th Floor of same Courthouse

November 1st, 2009

I VIEWIT

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
Direct Dial: (561) 245-8588 (o)
(561) 886-7628 (c)

VIA – EMAIL
Thursday, October 29, 2009

Senator John L. Sampson
Chairman
and
All Members of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee
New York Senate Judiciary Committee
506 Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247

Re:         Whistleblower Allegations of Criminal Activity at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Exposed in US Federal Court Requiring The Judiciary Committee’s Immediate Action; Response of Roy Reardon to the Request of Chairman, John L. Sampson Regarding Disciplinary Complaints Filed a the First Department, including but not limited to;

A. February 09, 2009 New Complaints ~ Februart 09, 2009 Iviewit Complaint Against Reardon and Friedberg @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf

1. Roy L. Reardon, Esq. – Waiting Docket # Since February 2009

2. Alan W. Friedberg, Esq. – Waiting Docket # Since February 2009

B. 2008 Complaints” Matters of Attorney Complaints Docket #2008-0756, appears to attempt to merge multiple complaints into one docket number, waiting formal individual docket #’s from NYAG.
            3. Proskauer Rose, LLP – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008
4. Foley & Lardner – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008
5. Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq. – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008
6. Joanna F. Smith, Esq. – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008
7. Todd C. Norbitz, Esq. – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008
8. Anne B. Sekel, Esq. – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008

C. Old Complaints 2002-2003
Unpublished First Dept. Court Orders for Investigation
Transferred by Unpublished COURT Orders, by Unanimous Consent of five First Dept Justices for Conflict of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety to the Second Department. The Second Department failed to conduct formal investigations ordered by First Dept. and the First Dept. failed to ever follow up on their Orders
M3198 – Steven C. Krane & Proskauer Rose
M2820 – Kenneth Rubenstein & Proskauer Rose and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel
M3212 Raymond A. Joao
9.   Thomas Cahill Special Inquiry No. 2004.1122 (former 1st Dept Chief Counsel) – Ongoing investigation by Martin Gold.
10. Steven C. Krane docket #2004.1883 (1st Dept Officer, former NYSBA President & Proskauer partner)
11. Kenneth Rubenstein docket #2003.0531 (Proskauer partner)
12. Raymond A. Joao docket #2003-0352
13. Proskauer Rose, LLP – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2003
14. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel – First Dep. failed to formally docket since 2003

[ Copies of the Complaints and Unpublished Orders can be found @ www.iviewit.tv on the HomePage in the Evidence Section, incorporated in entirety by reference herein. ]

Dear Chairman John L. Sampson and Members of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee ( Committee ),

1. Introduction

I write to you as a follow up to the Committee request to Alan W. Friedberg ( Friedberg ), Chief Counsel of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department ( First Dept ) Departmental Disciplinary Committee ( DDC ) to provide the Committee with status and information regarding Concealed Disciplinary Complaints requested from Friedberg at the September 24, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearing. Friedberg has responded to me, instead of the Committee, which causes further problems defined herein. At the beginning of my testimony at the September Committee hearing on Court Corruption in New York, Senator Sampson asked Friedberg to provide the Committee with information regarding what happened to complaints filed against Friedberg himself and Roy L. Reardon ( Reardon ), Chairman of the DDC. Complaints filed by me almost 8 months earlier, that I informed Senator Sampson in my opening statement had been CONCEALED for months inapposite the First Department’s own procedural rules and in violation of law.  [ VIDEO LINK Senator Sampson request for Friedberg to reply to him at the opening of Eliot Bernstein’s Testimony to the Judiciary Committee

http://

Part 2

http://

Full Hearing -04:02:30 in the following video of the September 24, 2009 hearing

1. NY Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee Letter dated October 07, 2009 to Eliot Bernstein in response to a Request for Information by Senator John L. Sampson, Chair, NY Senate Judiciary Committee as Evidence of Further Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes, Violations of the Rules and Regulations of the DDC and Violations of Law

Senator Sampson, I was stunned to get a direct reply from Reardon on October 07, 2009 attached herein as Exhibit 1, skirting your request for information and without even a courtesy carbon copy of the letter to the Judiciary Committee, a letter regarding what happened to the CONCEALED complaints against Reardon and Friedberg. This letter again has Reardon handling his own complaint and attempting to dismiss the complaint against himself and other DDC members, a violation of Attorney Conduct Codes, the Rules Regulating the DDC and Law, in a multiplicity of ways, including the obvious conflict created by one reviewing ones own complaint and acting upon it.

As you may remember from my testimony at the September 24, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearing and my prepared statement for the Judiciary Committee, the DDC is a defendant in my Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuitmarked legally related to the Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson ( Anderson ) v the State of New York ( 07cv09599 ) and the DDC as a defendant in that lawsuit has representative counsel, the New York Attorney General ( NYAG ). The DDC as a named defendant in my lawsuit, which the filed complaints directly relate to, makes it inappropriate, highly unethical and illegal for the DDC to be directly contacting me or handling the complaints versus having the matters handled through their retained counsel, Monica Connell ( Connell ) of the NYAG. As it is inappropriate for me, acting as Pro Se legal counsel, to be contacting parties directly who have counsel, I worked with DDC counsel the NYAG to have the complaints transferred to NON-CONFLICTED investigators. Connell directed me to file the complaints with the DDC stating the complaints would be moved once filed and that no First Dept or DDC members would even review the materials due to their OBVIOUS CONFLICTS but that procedurally the complaints initially had to be filed at the DDC. Yet, defying ethics and their counsel’s arrangements with me, the DDC interceded and attempted to dismiss the complaints against other defendants in the lawsuit and now even themselves in what defies logic, ethics and law.  [ Iviewit Amended Complaint - RICO http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf and October 05, 2009 Prepared Statement of Eliot Bernstein to the Judiciary Committee @ http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=165 ].

Roy Reardon, Chairman ~ New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department SUICIDE LETTER

III.      CONCEALMENT OF OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND OTHER PUBLIC OFFICE VIOLATIONS

In Reardon’s letter, he attempts to exculpate himself from the complaint against himself that he has CONCEALED since I filed it in February 2009, himself claiming the COMPLAINTS were not deemed complaints against him and Friedberg. Further, Reardon attempts to deny he was even aware of the FORMAL COMPLAINT, although referencing the FORMAL COMPLAINT filed against him in February in his own letter? Reardon’s letter attempts to dismiss the complaints he CONCEALED against himself and others since my February 09, 2009 FORMAL COMPLAINT, saying that he did not feel that it was a FORMAL COMPLAINT against Friedberg and himself. This action on his FORMAL COMPLAINT defies a mass of Rules Regulating the DDC, the Attorney Conduct Code, including but not limited to, DR (Disciplinary Rule) 1-102A 4 and 5, NY Penal Laws (see below) and Law. The attempt is to make it look like he has not CONCEALED the complaints, merely did not see my FORMAL COMPLAINT for what it was, as CONCEALMENT of Public Documents is further a crime as later defined herein.  See [ February 09, 2009 Iviewit Complaint Against Reardon and Friedberg @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf ]

Even if they did not deem it a FORMAL COMPLAINT, they still failed to respond in any way to my February COMPLAINT until your request at the September 24, 2009 hearing, more indicative of CONCEALMENT, since Reardon now admits receiving the FORMAL COMPLAINT in February.   The denial that the letter was a FORMAL COMPLAINT coming despite direct language in my FORMAL COMPLAINT claiming that it was a FORMAL COMPLAINT, to provide docketing numbers and to pass the new complaints to a NON-CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY. Yet obviously, Mr. Reardon can no longer comprehend reality, read or is attempting to set up an insanity or illiteracy defense. In fact, Reardon claims in the attached letter,

“We checked our records and found no substantive disciplinary complaint from you against me or Mr. Friedberg filed in 2009. We do have a fax letter from you dated February 9, 2009 which, among several issues, raises questions concerning possible conflicts by Committee Staff and Members in the handling of certain complaints brought by you. We did not deem that letter to be a formal complaint against me and Mr. Friedberg.”

My letter to Reardon References a February 09, 2009  in fact states specifically the following,

“Mr. Reardon and Mr. Friedberg, for your conflicted responses and violation of the First Department Rules and Attorney Code of Conduct, I welcome you to the Iviewit affairs with formal New Complaints against both of you with your department and ask that those be forwarded to your counsel the NYAG to have non conflicted parties review the matters versus your highly conflicted offices. [Emphasis Added] The New Complaints are to include anyone else in your offices or on the Committee who took part in any review and decision on the 2008 Complaints filed, as indicated in your letters. Please provide the appropriate information regarding the members involved.”

[FORMAL COMPLAINT] @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf

Further, in that very same February 2009 letter,

“Mssrs. Reardon & Friedberg, please take this letter as a formal complaint against both of you personally and all those who partook in these matters and please docket the New Complaints according to the established procedural rules and laws.[Emphasis Added] Mssrs. Reardon & Friedberg, it is surprising that you are aware of the Old Complaints filed at your department dating back to on or about 2001-2005 that you mention in your letter, which were filed in your office by the Iviewit companies and me. The Old Complaints were transferred to the Second Department as you astutely noted; however, you fail in your letter to mention that they were transferred due to a finding of the Appearance of Impropriety & Conflicts, in those attorney complaints. In notifying authorities of your newest unethical actions and rule violations, please provide me with all of the following information so that I may formally instigate further oversight of your unlawful and unethical behavior: [Emphasis Added]

1. List of all reviewers or employees who handled these 2008 Complaints, including all Committee members you reference in your letter,
2. Attach complete copies of the files for each separate 2008 Complaint filed and for the Old Complaints filed in your offices,
3. Provide individual 2008 Complaint DOCKET numbers, your letter only indicates one 2008-0756, for the following complained of parties:
4. The Law Offices of Proskauer Rose LLP
5. Foley & Lardner LLP
6. Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq.
7. Joanna F. Smith, Esq.
8. Todd C. Norbitz
9. Anne B. Sekel
10. Alan W. Friedberg, Esq. (provide Special Inquiry #) [Emphasis Added]
11. Roy Reardon, Esq. (provide Special Inquiry #) [Emphasis Added]

Rules applicable to the New Complaint against Reardon & Friedberg shall include, but not be limited to, the following…”

It would be nearly impossible for Mr. Reardon to make the claim that he did not see that this letter was a FORMAL COMPLAINT against Mr. Friedberg and himself, as it could be no clearer and fully complies with complaint procedures of the DDC. Technically, due to his and the DDC’s numerous conflicts, it is again highly unethical even to be reviewing the complaint materials. Again, although citing my February 09, 2009 COMPLAINT, Reardon fails to reckon with the fact that the COMPLAINT clearly demands that he not touch the FORMAL COMPLAINTS as arranged by his counsel the NYAG and yet he disregards his counsel to have the NYAG move the complaints.

Brazen, Stupid, Illiterate, Busted, Desperate perhaps but any way you slice it, Reardon’s response is Conflicted and as such a Violation of his Department Rules, the Attorney Code of Conduct and Law, together causing CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and violations of, including but not limited to, the Penal Laws cited below:

NY Penal Laws § 195.00 Official Misconduct.

   A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit:

   1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or

   2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

 

NY Penal Law § 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree.

   A person is guilty of tampering with public records in the first degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.

   Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D felony.

NY Penal Law § 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree.

   A person is guilty of tampering with public records in the second degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in,or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.

   Tampering with public records in the second degree is a Class A misdemeanor

More despicable is the insanity of Reardon in then attempting to handle and dismiss the COMPLAINTS against himself and Friedberg in his current letter, COMPLAINTS resulting from their conflicted actions dismissing complaints against defendants in my lawsuit while also defendants, months earlier, in what constitutes a CONFLICT OF INTEREST that defines the word CONFLICT. A CONFLICT creating an APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY that acts to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and DENY DUE PROCESS, leading to a loss of faith in Judiciary System of New York.  See http://www.halt.org/about_halt/in_the_news/2007/north_country_gazette_20071110.php and http://www.halt.org/jip/dir.php?cid=14and www.halt.org/reform_projects/lawyer_accountability/discipline_system ]

Finally, in reviewing the rest of Mr. Reardon’s recent letter we find further insane claims such as,

“Your previous complaints against former Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill and Mr. Friedberg had been addressed in my January 27, 2009 letter to you. That letter concluded the investigation.” [Footnote Added]

In fact, the letter was not addressed to me at all, or even carbon copied me and instead sent to an Iviewit company at an unauthorized address. I have no information such company exists in any form at that address and have reported this fact to the NYAG, including information regarding P. Stephen Lamont whom the letter is addressed to and whom I’ve asked the NYAG to begin investigation regarding potential securities and other frauds.  [ It should be noted that the January 27, 2009 letter referenced was not to myself, Eliot Bernstein, but instead to P. Stephen Lamont who has illegally been acting as an Iviewit Technologies Officer, the CEO, of an Iviewit company located 175 King Street in Armonk New York of which no such company to the best of my knowledge ever existed. I have previously made a Motion to Compel at the Second Circuit in my pending case regarding Lamont’s illegal behavior with the First Department in attempts to create exonerative letters through fraud in collusion with the DDC, which can be found @ http://iviewit.tv/wordpress ].  Also see http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090618%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20Re%20Lamont%20Signed.pdf

The claim by Reardon is further absurd in that the complaint against Cahill was part of the complaints transferred by the First Department for further investigation and an integral part of the complaints transferred by First Department COURT ORDER for INVESTIGATION. Per DDC Rules, the complaint against Cahill was transferred for SPECIAL INQUIRY to Martin Gold and has been ongoing for several years and now part of the Federal RICO Complaint I filed. The audacity of Mr. Reardon to NOW, after years, try and usurp that process in the middle of the lawsuit and dismiss the complaints against defendant Cahill again is wholly outside the Rules and Procedures of their Department and wholly unethical due to their conflicts as defendants in the lawsuit.

In yet another absurd attempt to deny reality in his October 7, 2009 letter, Reardon attempts to diffuse the fact that my COMPLAINT of February 09, 2009 was a formal request for reconsideration of their illegal and conflicted decision to dismiss complaints against the attorneys acting in conflict before the Scheindlin court. This denial that the dismissal was not properly appealed for reconsideration is a further attempt to try to cover up the fact that he did not follow the Rules and Regulations regarding reconsideration as he CONCEALED the factual COMPLAINT from February until your request for him to give you status.   Now Reardon claims,

“With regard to the “2008″ complaints against various attorneys, our January 12, 2009 closing letter advises that you may seek reconsideration of the dismissal by submitting a written request within 30 days. Although we did not deem your February 9, 2009 letter to be such a request, should you wish to have your complaint against those attorneys, and the Committee’s decision to close it, reviewed by another Committee member in accordance with our rules, please let us know (in writing sent via regular or overnight mail). Although you may continue to contact our office by fax, we require that you mail a hard copy of any faxed material and that it be signed by you.”

Yet had Reardon read the February 09, 2009 letter I sent, it clearly states,

“Also, we are filing this letter response to not only reinvestigate the dismissal of case Docket #2008-0756, docketed for an unknown person referenced in Friedberg’s letter as the only docket for 6 of the 2008 Complaints [Emphasis Added] but to also complain that the same attorney’s continue to act in conflict at the Court of Appeals, constituting further violations of the Attorney Code of Conduct.”

Reardon’s attempts at explaining why his office did not take this as a request to appeal their conflicted and illegal dismissal as timely and instead chose to bury it for approximately eight months shows culpability of the CONCEALMENT of ALL OF THE COMPLAINTS AT ISSUE AND NOW OBFUSCATION OF PROCEDURAL RULES THROUGH FURTHER CONCEALMENT.

1. The New York First Department Has an Alleged “Cleaner” Fixing Disciplinary Complaints for US Attorneys, NY District Attorneys, assistant DA’s

The audacity of attempting to dismiss complaints against oneself is par with the course for the Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department it seems, where it has recently been exposed in the ongoing Whistleblower Federal Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson ( Anderson ) v. The State of New York ( 07cv09599 ) that the DDC has an alleged “CLEANER”. In a scene more reminiscent of the Gotti trial, which simultaneously was being heard on the 26^th Floor of the Federal Courthouse, the First Department ETHICS DEPARTMENT trial on the 15^th Floor revealed CRIMINAL allegations of a “CLEANER” instead. A “CLEANER” named Naomi F. Goldstein, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC, allegedly fixing disciplinary complaints for the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney, according to sworn testimony by inside Whistleblower Anderson, a former Staff Attorney of the New York Supreme Court in the trial before the Honorable US Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ( Scheindlin ).  See http://www.free-press-release.com/news-andrew-cuomo-ag-protect-the-people-and-christine-anderson-and-not-crooked-lawyers-and-corrupt-government-employees-1255918900.htmland http://www.free-press-release.com/news-gotti-trial-on-26th-floor-nyc-federal-court-was-mirrored-by15th-floor-testimony-of-the-cleaner-naomi-goldstein-whitewashing-attorneys-in-1st-appel-1256265795.html

The CLEANER fixing disciplinary complaints in the same Department Reardon and Friedberg are acting Senior Public Officials of ~ imagine that. The highest office guarding the sanctity of the Legal System with control over all licensed attorneys, including Judges, Public Official Lawyers, Regulators, etc. who are licensed in the First Dept district, which includes WallStreet. Perhaps now we see how many of these crimes in Manhattan for the last several years that have destroyed this Great Nation, have CLEANED by regulators. Those in charge of the Last Bastion to the legal system, at the highest Regulatory Capacity, demanding the highest legal ethics, appearing instead to be run mob style, complete with ASSAULTS on Christine Anderson, a CLEANER and retaliation by those she was exposing after she exposed the Whitewashing fingering them. As a Whistleblower, those same officials were responsible for protecting Anderson; instead, they allegedly retaliated against her, including assault and more. All this factually alleged in sworn statements in Scheindlin’s Federal court.

1. Whistleblower Federal Lawsuit Reveals Criminal Allegations of Assault, Whitewashing of Complaints for the US Attorney, District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney, Favored Law Firms and Lawyers and more Requiring Judiciary Committee Action

On a more damning note, in Federal Court, under Federal Judge Scheindlin, whom herself termed the Anderson case a “Whistleblower” lawsuit, information alleging criminal activities including Whitewashing of Complaints and Assault were levied. [ October 27, 2009 Letter to Shira A. Scheindlin from Eliot Bernstein @  http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20091027%20Scheindlin%20Letter%20Regarding%20Anderson%20Criminal%20Elements%20Low.pdf and October 26, 2009 Letter to Shira A. Scheindlin from Terrence “Terry” Finnan who also testified at the Judiciary Committee Hearing in Albany on June 08. 2009. ] See also, http://www.exposecorruptessex.com/Scheindlin10269.html and http://www.free-press-release.com/news-us-district-judge-sheindlin-in-nyc-called-to-act-on-revealed-corrupt-ny-first-department-attorney-discipline-and-the-actions-of-the-ny-attorney-genera-1256748458.html

Whitewashing by former DDC Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill ( Cahill ), Deputy Chief Counsel Sherry K. Cohen, aka the Cleaner, former First Department Clerk of the Court Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe and others, now entered in the record via sworn testimony of Anderson in the matters. Based on Anderson’s Whistleblowing allegations the Cleaner ILLEGALLY fixes complaints for the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney through criminal Whitewashing and more, which in turn causes Obstruction, makes it now MANDATORY & LEGALLY OBLIGATORY under Judicial Cannons, Public Office Rules & Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law, that appropriate authorities formally are notified of the CRIMINAL allegations.

PLEASE NOTE that the Anderson case up to this point has been a civil complaint and remains so, therefore the jury apparently cannot even decide on the CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS until CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS and INDICTMENTS produce a CRIMINAL LAWSUIT. Once notified, the Proper Authorities now must begin CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS of those individuals named and further begin internal investigations of the Public Offices where Anderson alleged criminal corruption taking place. The appropriate Inspector Generals and others you and the Committee deem apropos should conduct the internal investigations and oversight to PREVENT FURTHER CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

Investigations should include the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, the Inspector General or other such regulatory body(ies) for the New York Supreme Court, the Inspector General for the New York Attorney General, the District Attorney and/or any other investigatory body(ies) you may convene or summon. I have copied many authorities involved in my legally related case to Anderson’s Federal Lawsuit of this correspondence as official notice as well. Additionally, the Judiciary Committee now is fully informed of the CRIMINAL allegations levied by Anderson from her riveting testimony before the first NY Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held on June 08, 2009, whereby Anderson testified to similar alleged CRIMINAL ACTIVITY in that hearing. [ June 08, 2009 Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony of Christine C. Anderson @ 32:00 Minutes on the Timeline (whistleblower) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded ]

Therefore, the NY Senate Judiciary Committee has obligations to now report and take appropriate actions and oversight actions having such knowledge of the alleged CRIMES involving the highest offices of the New York Judiciary.

The NYAG’s office probably a bit conflicted at this point in time to now become involved in the Criminal Investigations, due to the conflicts already caused by the NYAG representing the Anderson state defendants and failing to institute a simultaneous CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION through the Public Integrity Unite and instituting a CHINA WALL PRIOR TO UNDERTAKING REPRESENTATION OF DEFENDANTS. The CONFLICTS now shielding from prosecution those Anderson is blowing the whistle on by this total dereliction of duty and oath to office. The NYAG Public Integrity Unit, where Integrity appears lacking, charged with Whistleblower investigations of PUBLIC OFFICIALS on behalf of the People of New York yet they are none existent as the Conflict of representing those they should be investigating Obstructs their public duty.

Due to the Obvious Conflict, it may be a bad idea to summon the NYAG now to investigate their current clients The First Department, as this would only compound the conflicts. The NYAG’s prior failure to initiate investigations knowing of these Whistleblower claims long ago and instead embarking on a conflicted, obstructive and sham defense of the accused Public Officials may make it more applicable to begin formal investigations of the NYAG as part of the ever-growing cover up at the highest level of the New York Courts and Prosecutorial Offices.

NY Executive Law: § 63. General duties. The attorney-general shall:

1. Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state is interested, and have charge and control of all the legal business of the departments and bureaus of the state, or of any office thereof which requires the services of attorney or counsel, in order to protect the interest of the state…

 

The NYAG instead of advising their state defendant clients to get counsel due to the Conflict of Interest and Legal Obligations to Protect the Public instead has failed to do anything but put up a SHAM defense in Federal Court to protect the accused, failing duties to the Public and failing, including but not limited to,

Public Officers Rule 17 2(b)

(b) Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the employee shall be entitled to be represented by the attorney general, provided, however, that the employee shall be entitled to representation by private counsel of his choice in any civil judicial proceeding whenever the attorney general determines based upon his investigation and review of the facts and circumstances of the case that representation by the attorney general would be inappropriate, or whenever a court of competent jurisdiction, upon appropriate motion or by a special proceeding, determines that a conflict of interest exists and that the employee is entitled to be represented by private counsel of his choice.

In fact, this conflict is further insipid in that it entirely blocks due process by blocking out investigation by CRIMINAL investigators in the Anderson now CRIMINAL matters. This block acts to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE through CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE RULES & REGULATIONS and LAW and must stop.

1. Conclusion

Therefore, to Preclude further violations of law, I, Eliot I. Bernstein, make the following formal requests to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee for action to stop this outrageous, unethical and illegal behavior by:

1. Compelling the NYAG to immediately convene a Grand Jury to investigate the NYAG offices, the US Attorney offices, the District and Assistant District Attorney offices, the First Department and the DDC, all fingered by Anderson.
2. Compelling the District Attorney to immediately convene a Grand Jury to investigate the NYAG offices, the US Attorney offices, the District and Assistant District Attorney offices, the First Department and the DDC, all fingered by Anderson.
3. Beginning a Senate Judiciary Committee Task Force IMMEDIATELY to begin investigation and review of all those courts, court personnel and prosecutorial offices who are implicated in these matters, including but not limited to:
4. The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department
5. The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee
6. Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the DDC
7. Sherry K. Cohen, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC
8. Naomi Goldstein ~ “The Cleaner”, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC
9. David Spokony, Deputy Clerk First Department
10. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Former Clerk of the First Department and current Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals Southern District
11. Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli of the Appellate Division, First Department
12. Forcing removal of all of my disciplinary complaints from the First Department, the DDC and the Second Department for IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION and by NON-CONFLICTED INVESTIGATORS this time, especially where Anderson named my companies and my complaints filed with the DDC in her original federal lawsuit. Also, based on the fact that several named defendants in the Original Complaint are similar to my lawsuit, for example Thomas Cahill and Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe and my claims are very similar to what Anderson describes happening from the inside as her statement, Exhibit 2 attached herein illustrates. This also now mandates moving all my complaints, as Cahill and Wolfe are both Defendants in my suit and prescreening new investigators for conflict prior to engaging their services. A Conflict of Interest form is attached at the end of this letter and can be used as an initial Conflict Disclosure Form for anyone and everyone to sign and return who is reading the letter herein prior to undertaking any action. I quote from Anderson’s Original Lawsuit [October 28, 2007 Anderson Original Complaint http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf on Page 24-25],

“96. …Upon information and belief, sources within the DDC stated that Plaintiff posed a threat of further disclosures, since Cahill and Cohen knew that Plaintiff was aware of other misconduct on their part.

97. Upon information and belief, defendants also state that the timing of the Plaintiff’s abrupt firing was connected to the newly circulated revelations concerning Cahill’s status as an individually named defendant in a lawsuit entitled In the Matter of Complaints Against Attorneys and Counselors-At-Law; Kenneth Rubenstein – Docket 2003.0531; Raymond Joao – Docket 2003.0532; Steven C. Krane – Docket Pending Review By Paul J. Curran, Esq. – Thomas J. Cahill J. Cahill- Docket Pending By Special Counsel Martin R. Gold On Advisement of Paul J. Curran (Separate Motion Attached); and the Law Firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP; Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se and P. Stephen Lamont Both Individually and On Behalf of Shareholders of: Iviewit Corporation, et al, Petitioner. That lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Department.”

Especially, where prior misconduct by DDC Officers led to Unanimous Consent by Five First Department Justices for INVESTIGATION of CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS & THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY several years ago, revolving around these same matters, which were further BURIED and COVERED UP by CONFLICTED members of the SECOND DEPARTMENT DDC and the SECOND DEPARTMENT.

5. Beginning investigations into the Second Department and Second Department DDC for their illegal obstructive behavior in defiance of the First Department Court Orders and beginning similar Grand Jury and Judiciary Committee Task Force actions as those stated in 1 & 2 above.
6. Immediately suspending all First Department and Second Department Officers from handling complaints against themselves or the complaints of the legally related cases to Christine C. Anderson that legally are related by Judge Scheindlin marking them so.
7. Immediately oversight the US Federal Court of Scheindlin to force compliance with Judicial Cannons and Law that compel that court to now notify the proper authorities of the CRIMINAL ELEMENTS of the Anderson claims and need for immediate INVESTIGATION by all applicable oversight authorities.
8. Calling a Federal Monitor to Oversight the New York State Courts.

Please formally and in writing respond to this letter with exact language as to what your offices can do to intercede in any way in these matters.  I again thank you and the Judiciary Committee for your bold and courageous efforts already on behalf of the People of New York and my personal family to right the many wrongs and corruptions that have disabled the state.

 

Respectfully Yours,

 

_____________________
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot

cc/ec:

The Honorable Barack Hussein Obama II
President
United States of America

The Honorable Glenn A. Fine
Inspector General
United States Department of Justice

The Honorable John Conyers Jr.
Chairman
House Judiciary Committee

The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senate Judiciary Committee

Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
United States Attorney General
US Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

The Honorable Elena Kagan
Solicitor General
US Department of Justice

Robert S. Mueller, III.
Director
Federal Bureau of Investigation

Candice M. Will
Assistant Director, Office of Professional Responsibility
Federal Bureau of Investigation

The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Court ~ Southern District of New York

The Honorable Harry I. Moatz
Director, Office of Enrollment & Discipline
United States Patent & Trademark Office

Todd J. Zinser
Inspector General
United States Department of Commerce

David Kappos
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
United States Patent & Trademark Office

John J. Doll
Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent and Trademark Office

David L. Gouvaia
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

Mary L. Schapiro
Chairperson
United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Peter L. McClintock
Acting Inspector General
Small Business Administration

Chris P. Mercer
President
Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi)

Steven Michael Cohen
Counselor and Chief of Staff for Andrew Cuomo
New York Office of the Attorney General

Joseph M. Demarest, Jr.
FBI Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Division, 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10278-0004

David A. Paterson
Governor
New York State

New York Senate Judiciary Committee Members:

sampson@senate.state.ny.us, onorato@senate.state.ny.us, schneiderman@schneiderman.org, schneiderman@senate.state.ny.us, hassellt@senate.state.ny.us, diaz@senate.state.ny.us, jdklein@senate.state.ny.us, eadams@senate.state.ny.us, espada@senate.state.ny.us,breslin@senate.state.ny.us, dilan@senate.state.ny.us, savino@senate.state.ny.us, perkins@senate.state.ny.us, maziarz@senate.state.ny.us,jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us, volker@senate.state.ny.us, saland@senate.state.ny.us, lavalle@senate.state.ny.us, bonacic@senate.state.ny.us, winner@senate.state.ny.us, nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us, lanza@senate.state.ny.us, ranz@senate.state.ny.us, spotts@senate.state.ny.us.

Hon. Andrew Cuomo
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341
and
120 Broadway
New York City, NY
10271-0332

Monica Connell, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General – Division of State Counsel Litigation Bureau, State of New York Office of the Attorney General
120 Broadway
New York City, NY
10271-0332

Thomas P. DiNapoli
Comptroller
State of New York

Robert Morris Morgenthau
District Attorney of New York County
One Hogan Place
New York, NY 10013
212-335-9000

Lovett & Bellatoni
37A Saw Mill River Road, RT 9A
Hawthorne, NY 10532

Select Press

Select Iviewit Shareholders and Patent Interest Holders

Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s)

Uniform Resource Locator(s)           All Uniform Resource Locators ( URL ) incorporated in entirety by reference herein

 

cmb/eib

 

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2 – Christine C. Anderson Statement

Christine C. Anderson

Attorney at Law

227 Riverside Drive, Ste. 2N

New York, New York 10025

 

September 13, 2009 (via Confirmed Overnight Delivery)

 

The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General of the United States

Office of the Attorney General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

 

The Hon. Preet Bharara

United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York

United States Department of Justice

One St. Andrews Plaza

New York, New York 10007

 

Hon. William M. Welch II

Chief, Public Integrity Unit

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

 

The Hon. John L. Sampson,Chairman

New York State Senate Judiciary Committee

409 Legislative Office Building

Albany, NY 12247

 

Re: Request for Federal Investigation Into Allegations of Corruption and Witness Intimidation and Appointment of Federal Monitor

 

Gentlemen:

 

My name is Christine C. Anderson. For six and one-half years, I was a Principal Attorney of the New York State Appellate Division, First Department’s Departmental Disciplinary Committee (the “DDC”). The DDC is responsible for investigating and disciplining attorneys found guilty of misconduct in representing the public in the Bronx and Manhattan. After discovering and reporting of acts of misconduct and corruption at the DDC, which acts constituted an abuse of power and a fraud upon the public, my employment was summarily terminated in June, 2007.

 

Prior to my employment with the DDC, I was in private practice for over twenty years. Before that, I worked for the Human Resources Administration of New York City. In other words, I am a thoroughly seasoned attorney, with a broad based knowledge of general practice.

 

As a result of my wrongful termination in retaliation for my reporting misconduct in violation of my First Amendment rights, I instituted a lawsuit captioned Anderson v. State of New York, et al., 07 Civ. 9599 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). (A copy of my complaint in this action is attached hereto as Exhibit A.) Specifically, I discovered and reported that employees of the DDC had engaged in, inter alia, the “whitewashing” [of] complaints of misconduct leveled against certain “select” attorneys and law firms. This “whitewashing” sometimes involved burying cases or destroying evidence, so that certain complaints were inevitably, unavoidably, dismissed. I witnessed this destruction of evidence myself. Other reported misconduct involves victimizing attorneys lacking privileged positions or connections.

 

Although the then Chief Counsel of the DDC, Thomas Cahill, stepped down in 2007, evidence clearly establishes that under the leadership of Alan Friedberg, the current Chief Counsel, the same practice of corruption and whitewashing of complaints continues. Such practice robs the public of any hope at justice; it also works to the detriment of the very public the DDC is duty-bound to serve.

 

During the course of my litigation against the DDC, a former colleague of mine, who still works as a Principal Attorney at the DDC, agreed to testify on my behalf at a deposition. This former colleague, Nicole Corrado, has been employed by the DDC for approximately eight years, prior to which she worked as a prosecutor for New York State. On the morning of her deposition, however, while en route to her deposition, Ms. Corrado was approached on the street by a supervisor at the DDC, who threatened and intimidated her with respect to her upcoming deposition testimony. Although terribly shaken, Ms. Corrado nonetheless sat for her deposition and testified truthfully. Following her deposition, however, Ms. Corrado has been subjected to further harassment and intimidation at the hands of the DDC. She has been forced to take a leave of absence as a result.

 

On June 8, 2009, I testified at a hearing convened by John L. Sampson, New York State Senator and Chairman of the New York State Standing Committee On The Judiciary. (A copy of my affidavit submitted to the Committee is attached hereto as Exhibit B.) At that hearing, several witnesses testified as to their shocking experiences with the grievance and judiciary committees in New York State. Shockingly, within days of my testimony, in my lawsuit, my sealed medical and psychiatric records were filed and posted publicly on the court’s Internet filing system by counsel for the defendants – i.e., the New York State Attorney General’s Office. I regard those actions as horrifically unethical and malicious, and taken in deliberate retaliation for my testifying at the Senate hearing.

 

The detailed testimony presented by innumerable witnesses at the June 8th Senate hearing reveals the manifold reports of corruption and abuse by the State’s Disciplinary Committees. (A copy of the transcript of this hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit C.) Charges included concealment of evidence, obstruction of justice, extortionate sexual threats by attorneys, pilfering of estates by attorneys, abuse of power, fraud, conspiracy and repeated violations of state and federal constitutional rights.

 

In light of the foregoing, it is plain that the enduring practice of allowing attorneys in this state to police themselves is fundamentally flawed. With the numerous reports of abuse by both attorneys and state officials, the corruption in the court system has reached a critical stage. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you authorize the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate the epidemic of honest services fraud in the New York state court system, and the appointment of a Federal Monitor, to oversee the lawful operation of the same.

 

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your response.

 

Very truly yours,

 

Christine C. Anderson

 

cc w/o enc:

 

The Hon. David A. Paterson

New York State Governor

Office of the Governor of New York State

State Capitol

Albany, New York 12224

 

The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III

Deputy United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York

Public Corruption Unit

United States Department of Justice

One St. Andrews Plaza

New York, New York 10007

 

The Hon. Loretta A. Preska

Chief U.S. District Judge

United States Courthouse

Southern District of New York

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007-1312

 

The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo

New York State Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General of New York State

The Capitol

Albany, New York 12224-0341

 

The Hon. Luis A. Gonzalez

Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division,1st Department

27 Madison Avenue

New York, New York 10010

 

The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr.

Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division

26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor

New York, New York 10278-0004

 

 

End Anderson Letter

******The Committee should take URGENT notice of the following information exposed by the Internet Legal Site, Expose Corrupt Courts, in relation to Anderson’s claims perhaps of Targeting Federal Witnesses for Harassment, I again quote and read into the record @ http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/11/breaking-news.html : FBI Probes Threats on Federal Witnesses in NY Ethics Scandal

 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE

Please accept and return signed the following Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure Form before continuing further with adjudication, review or investigation of the attached Motion Information Statement – Motion for Extension of Time and any materials relating to Eliot Bernstein and or the Iviewit companies as listed herein, failure to comply may result in criminal and civil charges against you. This Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form is designed to ensure that the review and any determinations from such review of the enclosed materials will not be biased by any conflicting financial interest or any other conflicting interest by those reviewers responsible for the handling of this confidential information with the main alleged perpetrators of the alleged crimes in these matters.

Disclosure forms with “Yes” answers to any of the following questions are requested not to open the remainder of the documents or opine in any manner and instead forward the matters on to the next available reviewer that is free of conflict that can sign and complete the disclosure. Please identify conflicts that you have in writing upon terminating your involvement in the matters. As many of these alleged perpetrators are large law firms, members of various state and federal courts and officers of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, careful review and disclosure of any conflict with those named herein is pertinent in your continued handling of these matters.

As these matters involve claims of conflicts, violations of public offices, interference with complaints in the Supreme Court of New York, coercion, document destruction, obstructions of justice, the need for prescreening for conflict is essential to the administration of due process in these matters. Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin has legally related these matters to a Whistleblower Lawsuit who alleges similar claims of public office corruption against Supreme Court of New York personnel and possibly others. Please take this as a formal written request for full disclosure of any conflict on your part, such request conforming with all applicable state and federal laws, public office rules and regulations, attorney conduct codes and judicial cannons or other international law and treatises.

Failure to comply with all applicable conflict disclosure rules, regulations and laws prior to continued action on your part will be cause for the filing of complaints against you for any decisions or actions you make prior to a signed Conflict Of Interest Disclosure Form with all applicable regulatory agencies. Complaints will be filed with all appropriate authorities, including but not limited to, Public Integrity Officials, Judicial Conduct Officials, State and Federal Bar Associations, Disciplinary Departments and all appropriate law enforcement agencies for failing to follow well established rules and regulations governing public office conflict, attorney conduct conflicts, judicial conduct and law.

 

1. Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate have, any direct or indirect relations (relationships), or interest in any outside entity or any direct or indirect relations (relationships) to the following parties to the proceeding of the matters you are reviewing:
2. Proskauer Rose, LLP; Alan S. Jaffe – Chairman Of The Board – (”Jaffe”); Kenneth Rubenstein – (”Rubenstein”); Robert Kafin – Managing Partner – (”Kafin”); Christopher C. Wheeler – (”Wheeler”); Steven C. Krane – (”Krane”); Stephen R. Kaye – (”S. Kaye”) and in his estate with New York Supreme Court Chief Judge Judith Kaye (“J. Kaye”); Matthew Triggs – (”Triggs”); Christopher Pruzaski – (”Pruzaski”); Mara Lerner Robbins – (”Robbins”); Donald Thompson – (”Thompson”); Gayle Coleman; David George; George A. Pincus; Gregg Reed; Leon Gold – (”Gold”); Albert Gortz – (”Gortz”); Marcy Hahn-Saperstein; Kevin J. Healy – (”Healy”); Stuart Kapp; Ronald F. Storette; Chris Wolf; Jill Zammas; FULL LIST OF 601 liable Proskauer Partners; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Proskauer partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Proskauer ROSE LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Proskauer related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
3. MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN, WOLF & SCHLISSEL, P.C.; Lewis Melzter – (”Meltzer”); Raymond Joao – (”Joao”); Frank Martinez – (”Martinez”); Kenneth Rubenstein – (”Rubenstein”); FULL LIST OF 34 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. liable Partners; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
4. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP; Ralf Boer (”Boer”); Michael Grebe (“Grebe”); Christopher Kise (“Kise”); William J. Dick – (”Dick”); Steven C. Becker – (”Becker”); Douglas Boehm – (”Boehm”); Barry Grossman – (”Grossman”); Jim Clark – (”Clark”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Foley & Lardner partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Foley & Lardner; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Foley & Lardner related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
5. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Richard Schiffrin – (”Schiffrin”); Andrew Barroway – (”Barroway”); Krishna Narine – (”Narine”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
6. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Norman Zafman – (”Zafman”); Thomas Coester – (”Coester”); Farzad Ahmini – (”Ahmini”); George Hoover – (”Hoover”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
7. Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP; Martyn W. Molyneaux – (”Molyneaux”); Michael Dockterman – (”Dockterman”); FULL LIST OF 198 Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP liable Partners; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
8. Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Alan M. Weisberg – (”Weisberg”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
9. YAMAKAWA INTERNATIONAL PATENT OFFICE; Masaki Yamakawa – (”Yamakawa”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Yamakawa International Patent Office partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Yamakawa International Patent Office; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Yamakawa International Patent Office related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
10. GOLDSTEIN LEWIN & CO.; Donald J. Goldstein – (”Goldstein”); Gerald R. Lewin – (”Lewin”); Erika Lewin – (”E. Lewin”); Mark R. Gold; Paul Feuerberg; Salvatore Bochicchio; Marc H. List; David A. Katzman; Robert H. Garick; Robert C. Zeigen; Marc H. List; Lawrence A. Rosenblum; David A. Katzman; Brad N. Mciver; Robert Cini; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Goldstein & Lewin Co. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Goldstein & Lewin Co.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Goldstein & Lewin Co. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
11. INTEL Corporation;
12. Silicon Graphics Inc.;
13. Lockheed Martin Corporation;
14. Real 3D, Inc. (SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN & INTEL) & RYJO; Gerald Stanley – (”Stanley”); Ryan Huisman – (”Huisman”); RYJO – (”RYJO”); Tim Connolly – (”Connolly”); Steve Cochran; David Bolton; Rosalie Bibona – (”Bibona”); Connie Martin; Richard Gentner; Steven A. Behrens; Matt Johannsen; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO; Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO related or affiliated entities, and any successor companies both individually and professionally;
15. Tiedemann Investment Group; Bruce T. Prolow (”Prolow”); Carl Tiedemann (”C. Tiedemann”); Andrew Philip Chesler; Craig L. Smith; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Tiedemann Investment Group partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Tiedemann Investment Group and any other Tiedemann Investment Group related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
16. Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners; Stephen J. Warner – (”Warner”); Rene P. Eichenberger – (”Eichenberger”); H. Hickman Hank Powell – (”Powell”); Maurice Buchsbaum – (”Buchsbaum”); Eric Chen – (”Chen”); Avi Hersh; Matthew Shaw – (”Shaw”); Bruce W. Shewmaker – (”Shewmaker”); Ravi M. Ugale – (”Ugale”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners and any other Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
17. BROAD & CASSEL; James J. Wheeler – (”J. Wheeler”); Kelly Overstreet Johnson – (”Johnson”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Broad & Cassell partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Broad & Cassell and any other Broad & Cassell related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
18. FORMER IVIEWIT MANAGEMENT & BOARD; Brian G. Utley/Proskauer Referred Management – (”Utley”); Raymond Hersh – (”Hersh”)/; Michael Reale – (”Reale”)/Proskauer Referred Management; Rubenstein/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit – Advisory Board; Wheeler/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit – Advisory Board; Dick/Foley & Lardner – Advisory Board, Boehm/Foley & Lardner – Advisory Board; Becker/Foley & Lardner; Advisory Board; Joao/Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel – Advisory Board; Kane/Goldman Sachs – Board Director; Lewin/Goldstein Lewin – Board Director; Ross Miller, Esq. (“Miller”), Prolow/Tiedemann Prolow II – Board Director; Powell/Crossbow Ventures/Proskauer Referred Investor – Board Director; Maurice Buchsbaum – Board Director; Stephen Warner – Board Director; Simon L. Bernstein – Board Director (“S. Bernstein”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Former Iviewit Management & Board partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Former Iviewit Management & Board and any other Former Iviewit Management & Board related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
19. FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT – WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA; Judge Jorge LABARGA – (”Labarga”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT – WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as (”15C”);
20. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE; Thomas Cahill – (”Cahill”); Joseph Wigley – (”Wigley”); Steven Krane, any other John Doe (”John Doe”) of THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time;
21. THE FLORIDA BAR; Lorraine Christine Hoffman – (”Hoffman”); Eric Turner – (”Turner”); Kenneth Marvin – (”Marvin”); Anthony Boggs – (”Boggs”); Joy A. Bartmon – (”Bartmon”); Kelly Overstreet Johnson – (”Johnson”); Jerald Beer – (”Beer”); Matthew Triggs; Christopher or James Wheeler; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) The Florida Bar staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time;
22. MPEGLA, LLC. – Kenneth Rubenstein, Patent Evaluator; Licensors and Licensees, please visit www.mpegla.com for a complete list; Columbia University; Fujitsu Limited; General Instrument Corp; Lucent Technologies Inc.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips); Scientific Atlanta, Inc.; Sony Corp. (Sony); EXTENDED LIST OF MPEGLA LICENSEES AND LICENSORS; any other John Doe MPEGLA, LLC. Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) MPEGLA, LLC partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to MPEGLA, LLC and any other MPEGLA, LLC related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
23. DVD6C LICENSING GROUP – Licensors and Licensees, please visit www.mpegla.com for a complete list; Toshiba Corporation; Hitachi, Ltd.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Time Warner Inc.; Victor Company Of Japan, Ltd.; EXTENDED DVD6C DEFENDANTS; any other John Doe DVD6C LICENSING GROUP Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe (”John Doe”) DVD6C LICENSING GROUP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to DVD6C LICENSING GROUP and any other DVD6C LICENSING GROUP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
24. Harrison Goodard Foote incorporating Brewer & Son; Martyn Molyneaux, Esq. (“Molyneaux”); Any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Harrison Goodard Foote (incorporating Brewer & Son) partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Harrison Goodard Goote incorporating Brewer & Son and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
25. Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;
26. James E. Peltzer, Clerk of the Court of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department; Diana Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;
27. Houston & Shahady, P.A., any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Houston & Shahady, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Houston & Shahady, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
28. Furr & Cohen, P.A. any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Furr & Cohen, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Furr & Cohen, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
29. Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
30. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Jeffrey Friedstein (“Friedstein”); Sheldon Friedstein (S. Friedstein”), Donald G. Kane (“Kane”); any other John Doe (”John Doe”) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
31. David B. Simon, Esq. (“D. Simon”);
32. Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Sachs Saxs & Klein, PA related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
33. Huizenga Holdings Incorporated any other John Doe (”John Doe”) Huizenga Holdings Incorporated affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Huizenga Holdings Incorporated related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally;
34. Davis Polk & Wardell;
35. Ropes & Gray LLP;
36. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP;
37. Judge Martin Glenn at the United States Bankruptcy Court ~ Southern District of New York
38. Eliot I. Bernstein, (“Bernstein”) a resident of the State of California, and former President (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and the founder of Iviewit and principal inventor of its technology;
39. P. Stephen Lamont, (“Lamont”) a resident of the State of New York, and former Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries;
40. SKULL AND BONES; The Russell Trust Co.; Yale Law School;
41. Council on Foreign Relations;
42. The Bilderberg Group;
43. The Federalist Society;
44. The Bradley Foundation;
45. Please include in the COI check the defendants and any other parties in the legally related case of New York District Court Southern District of New York Docket No (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. – WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT;
46. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 08-4873-cv
47. (07cv11196) Bernstein et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. – TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT Defendants, in addition to those already listed herein, include but are not limited to;
48. STATE OF NEW YORK;
49. THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;
50. STEVEN C. KRANE in his official and individual Capacities for the New York State Bar Association and the Appellate Division First Department Departmental disciplinary Committee, and, his professional and individual capacities as a Proskauer partner;
51. ESTATE OF STEPHEN KAYE, in his professional and individual capacities;
52. MATTHEW M. TRIGGS in his official and individual capacity for The Florida Bar and his professional and individual capacities as a partner of Proskauer;
53. JON A. BAUMGARTEN, in his professional and individual capacities;
54. SCOTT P. COOPER, in his professional and individual capacities;
55. BRENDAN J. O’ROURKE, in his professional and individual capacities;
56. LAWRENCE I. WEINSTEIN, in his professional and individual capacities;
57. WILLIAM M. HART, in his professional and individual capacities;
58. DARYN A. GROSSMAN, in his professional and individual capacities;
59. JOSEPH A. CAPRARO JR., in his professional and individual capacities;
60. JAMES H. SHALEK; in his professional and individual capacities;
61. GREGORY MASHBERG, in his professional and individual capacities;
62. JOANNA SMITH, in her professional and individual capacities;
63. TODD C. NORBITZ, in his professional and individual capacities;
64. ANNE SEKEL, in his professional and individual capacities;
65. JIM CLARK, in his professional and individual capacities;
66. STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA;
67. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT;
68. HON. CHARLES T. WELLS, in his official and individual capacities;
69. HON. HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, in his official and individual capacities;
70. HON. R. FRED LEWIS, in his official and individual capacities;
71. HON. PEGGY A. QUINCE, in his official and individual capacities;
72. HON. KENNETH B. BELL, in his official and individual capacities;
73. THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual capacities;
74. DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and individual capacities;
75. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA;
76. CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA.;
77. ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and individual capacities;
78. ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual capacities;
79. PAUL CURRAN in his official and individual capacities;
80. MARTIN R. GOLD in his official and individual capacities;
81. SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT;
82. CATHERINE O’HAGEN WOLFE in her official and individual capacities;
83. HON. ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI in her official and individual capacities;
84. HON. RICHARD T. ANDRIAS in his official and individual capacities;
85. HON. DAVID B. SAXE in his official and individual capacities;
86. HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN in his official and individual capacities;
87. HON. LUIZ A. GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;
88. SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT;
89. SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE;
90. HON. A. GAIL PRUDENTI in her official and individual capacities;
91. HON. JUDITH S. KAYE in her official and individual capacities;
92. STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION;
93. ANTHONY CARTUSCIELLO in his official and individual capacities;
94. LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
95. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;
96. ELIOT SPITZER in his official and individual capacities, as both former Attorney General for the State of New York, and, as former Governor of the State of New York;
97. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;
98. VIRGINIA STATE BAR;
99. ANDREW H. GOODMAN in his official and individual capacities;
100. NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual capacities;
101. MARY W. MARTELINO in her official and individual capacities;
102. LIZBETH L. MILLER, in her official and individual capacities;
103. MPEGLA LLC; LAWRENCE HORN, in his professional and individual capacities;
104. INTEL CORP.; LARRY PALLEY, in his professional and individual capacities;
105. SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.;
106. LOCKHEED MARTIN Corp;
107. EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE;
108. ALAIN POMPIDOU in his official and individual capacities;
109. WIM VAN DER EIJK in his official and individual capacities;
110. LISE DYBDAHL in her official and personal capacities;
111. DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.;
112. ROYAL O’BRIEN, in his professional and individual capacities;
113. HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional and individual capacities;
114. WAYNE HUIZENGA, JR., in his professional and individual capacities;
115. BART A. HOUSTON, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
116. BRADLEY S. SCHRAIBERG, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
117. WILLIAM G. SALIM, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
118. BEN ZUCKERMAN, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;
119. SPENCER M. SAX, in his professional and individual capacities;
120. ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;
121. JOHNNIE E. FRAZIER in his official and individual capacities;
122. IVIEWIT, INC., a Florida corporation;
123. IVIEWIT, INC., a Delaware corporation;
124. IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Uview.com, Inc.);
125. UVIEW.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;
126. IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Iviewit Holdings, Inc.);
127. IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation;
128. IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Florida corporation;
129. I.C., INC., a Florida corporation;
130. IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;
131. IVIEWIT.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
132. IVIEWIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
133. IVIEWIT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation;
134. IBM CORPORATION;
135. Cases @ US District Court – Southern District NY
136. (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. – WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT;
137. (07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.;
138. (07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.;
139. (08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.;
140. (08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.;
141. (08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.;
142. (08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al.;
143. (08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.;
144. (08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.;
145. (08 cv 6368)   John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

 

5. Any other known or unknown person or known or unknown entity not named herein that will cause your review of the complaint you are charged with investigating to be biased by any conflicting past, present, or future financial interest or any other interest?

 

_____NO               ____YES

 

 

Please describe in detail any identified conflicted parties on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information regarding the conflict. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations, relationships and / or interests and please affirm whether such presents a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.

 

1. Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, receive salary or other remuneration or financial considerations from any entity related to the enclosed parties to the proceeding of the mattersincluding but not limited to campaign contributions whether direct, “in kind” or of any type at all?

 

_____NO               ____YES

 

Please describe in detail any identified conflicted parties on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information regarding the conflict. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations, relationships and / or interests and please affirm whether such presents a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.

 

1. Have you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, had any prior conversations with any person related to the proceeding of the Iviewit or related matters?

 

_____NO               ____YES

 

Please describe in detail any identified conflicted parties on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information regarding the conflict. If the answer is Yes, please describe the relations, relationships and / or interests and please affirm whether such presents a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.

 

1. I have run a thorough and exhaustive Conflict of Interest check to conform with any and all state, federal or local laws and any professional association rules and regulations obligating such check and/or disclosure to verify that my spouse, my dependents, and I in the aggregate, have no conflicts with any parties.

_____NO               ____YES

 

1. I have notified all parties with any liabilities regarding my continued actions in these matters, including state agencies, insurance concerns or any other person with liability that may result from my actions in these matters.

_____NO               ____YES

 

 

Relevant Sections of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law

 

Conflict of Interest Laws

Conflict of interest” indicates a situation where a private interest may influence a public decision. Conflict of Interest Laws are laws and regulations designed to prevent conflicts of interest. These laws may contain provisions related to financial or asset disclosure, exploitation of one’s official position and privileges, regulation of campaign practices, etc.

 

New York State Consolidated Laws Penal
ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES

S 200.03 Bribery in the second degree

S 200.04 Bribery in the first degree

S 200.05 Bribery; defense

S 200.10 Bribe receiving in the third degree

S 200.11 Bribe receiving in the second degree

S 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree

S 200.15 Bribe receiving; no defense

S 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree S 200.25 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree

S 200.30 Giving unlawful gratuities

S 200.35 Receiving unlawful gratuities

S 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office; definition of term

S 200.45 Bribe giving for public office

S 200.50 Bribe receiving for public office

ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS

S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree. S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

S 175.15 Falsifying business records; defense

S 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree

S 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree

S 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree

S 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree

NY Constitution ARTICLE XIII Public Officers

Public Officers – Public Officers ARTICLE 1

ARTICLE 2 Appointment and Qualification of Public Officers – ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

S 468-b. Clients` security fund of the state of New York

S 476-a. Action for unlawful practice of the law

S 476-b. Injunction to restrain defendant from unlawful practice of the law

S 476-c. Investigation by the attorney-general

S 487. Misconduct by attorneys

S 488. Buying demands on which to bring an action.

Public Officers Law SEC 73 Restrictions on the Activities Of Current and Former State Officers and Employees

Public Officers Law SEC 74 Code of Ethics

Conflicts of Interest Law, found in Chapter 68 of the New York City Charter, the City’s Financial Disclosure Law, set forth in section 12-110 of the New York City Administrative Code, and the Lobbyist Gift Law, found in sections 3-224 through 3-228 of the Administrative Code.

 

TITLE 18 FEDERAL CODE & OTHER APPLICABLE FEDERAL LAW

TITLE 18 PART I CH 11

Sec. 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses

Sec. 225. – Continuing financial crimes enterprise

BRIBERY, GRAFT, AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Sec. 205. – Activities of officers and employees in claims against and other matters affecting the Government

Sec. 208. – Acts affecting a personal financial interest

Sec. 210. – Offer to procure appointive public office

Sec. 225. – Continuing financial crimes enterprise

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1623 – False declarations before grand jury or court

Sec 654 – Officer or employee of United States converting property of another

TITLE 18 PART I CH 73 Sec 1511 – Obstruction of State or local law enforcement

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1961 RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT Organizations (”RICO”)

Section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice),

Section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal investigations)

Section 1511 (relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement),

Section 1952 (relating to racketeering),

Section 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity),

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (A) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (B) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (C) RICO

title 18 part i ch 19 sec 1962 (d) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY Sec 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 Sec 1031 – Major fraud against the United States

 

Judicial Cannons

Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

[1.1] Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law, including the provisions of this Code. Public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and thereby does injury to the system of government under law.

Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

(A) A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

[2.2][2A] The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.

 

Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently

(B) Adjudicative responsibilities.

(l) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor or fear of criticism.

(2) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the judge.

(D) Disciplinary responsibilities.

(1) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a substantial violation of this Part shall take appropriate action.

(2) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a substantial violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility shall take appropriate action.

(3) Acts of a judge in the discharge of disciplinary responsibilities are part of a judge’s judicial duties.

 

(E) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned

[3.11][3B(6)(e)] A judge may delegate the responsibilities of the judge under Canon 3B(6) to a member of the judge’s staff. A judge must make reasonable efforts, including the provision of appropriate supervision, to ensure that Section 3B(6) is not violated through law clerks or other personnel on the judge’s staff. This provision does not prohibit the judge or the judge’s law clerk from informing all parties individually of scheduling or administrative decisions.

[3.21][3E(1)] Under this rule, a judge is disqualified whenever the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless whether any of the specific rules in Section 3E(1) apply. For example, if a judge were in the process of negotiating for employment with a law firm, the judge would be disqualified from any matters in which that firm appeared, unless the disqualification was waived by the parties after disclosure by the judge.

[3.22][3E(1)] A judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider relevant to the question of disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no real basis for disqualification.

Canon 4. A Judge May Engage in Extra-Judicial Activities To Improve the Law, the Legal System, and the Administration of Justice

Canon 5. A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties

 

Public Office Conduct Codes New York

 

PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW Laws 1909, Chap. 51.

CHAPTER 47 OF THE CONSOLIDATED LAWS PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW

Sec. 17. Defense and indemnification of state officers and employees.

2 (b)

Sec. 18. Defense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities.

3 (b)

Sec. 74. Code of ethics.

(2)

(3)

(4)

 

§ 73. Business or professional activities by state officers and employees and party officers.

 

NY Attorney Conduct Code

(a) “Differing interests” include every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client, whether it be a conflicting, inconsistent, diverse, or other interest.

CANON 5. A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional Judgment on Behalf of a Client

DR 5-101 [1200.20] Conflicts of Interest – Lawyer’s Own Interests.

DR 5-102 [1200.21] Lawyers as Witnesses.

DR 5-103 [1200.22] Avoiding Acquisition of Interest in Litigation.

DR 5-104 [1200.23] Transactions Between Lawyer and Client.

DR 5-105 [1200.24] Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation.

DR 5-108 [1200.27] Conflict of Interest – Former Client.

CANON 6. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Competently

CANON 7. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law

DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.

DR 7-110 [1200.41] Contact with Officials.

DR 8-101 [1200.42] Action as a Public Official.

DR 8-103 [1200.44] Lawyer Candidate for Judicial Office.

A. A lawyer who is a candidate for judicial office shall comply with section 100.5 of the Chief Administrator’s Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR) and Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

CANON 9. A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety

DR 9-101 [1200.45] Avoiding Even the Appearance of Impropriety.

 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements in this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM are true and correct. Executed on this ____ day of _______20__ the foregoing statements in this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM are true. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims will subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, including possible culpability in the RICO related crimes including the alleged attempted murder of the inventor Eliot Bernstein and his wife and children in a car-bombing attempt on their lives. I agree to accept responsibility for the unbiased review, and presentation of findings to the appropriate party(ies) who also have executed this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM. A lack of signature will serve as evidence that I have accepted this document with conflict in the event that I continue to represent the matters without signing such COI first and will be an admission of such conflict(s).

 

Organization – United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit

 

Print Name & Title________________________________

 

Signature ______________________________________

Date________/_________/__________

If you are unable to sign this COI and are therefore unable to continue further to pursue these matters, please attach a statement of whom we may contact as your replacement. A copy can be sent to Iviewit@Iviewit.tv or the mailing address below:

 

Eliot I. Bernstein

Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL

Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL

Uview.com, Inc. – DL

Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL

Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL

I.C., Inc. – FL

Iviewit.com LLC – DL

Iviewit LLC – DL

Iviewit Corporation – FL

Iviewit, Inc. – FL

Iviewit, Inc. – DL

Iviewit Corporation

2753 N.W. 34th St.

Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459

(561) 245.8588 (o)

(561) 886.7628 (c)

(561) 245-8644 (f)

Iviewit@Iviewit.tv

www.Iviewit.tv

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:

This message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521. This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message or call (561) 245-8588. If you are the intended recipient but do not wish to receive communications through this medium, please so advise the sender immediately.12758WORD

[1] Februart 09, 2009 Iviewit Complaint Against Reardon and Friedberg

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf

[2] Copies of the Complaints and Unpublished Orders can be found @ www.iviewit.tv on the HomePage in the Evidence Section, incorporated in entirety by reference herein.

[3] Senator Sampson request for Friedberg to reply to him at the opening of Eliot Bernstein’s Testimony to the Judiciary Committee which starts @ 04:02:30 in the following video of the September 24, 2009 hearing

http://www.livestream.com/nysenate/ondemand/pla_cce9d795-b7f2-4996-8fbd-a4c848aba2bd?initthumburl=http://mogulus-user-files.s3.amazonaws.com/chnysenate/2009/09/24/3ccbb0fd-f73d-4733-9ae5-2aac6d59f1ac_8530.jpg&playeraspectwidth=4&playeraspectheight=3

 

[4] October 05, 2009 Prepared Statement of Eliot Bernstein to the Judiciary Committee

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=165

[5] Iviewit Amended Complaint – RICO http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

[6] Februart 09, 2009 Iviewit Complaint Against Reardon and Friedberg

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf

[7]http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf

[8]http://www.halt.org/about_halt/in_the_news/2007/north_country_gazette_20071110.php

and

http://www.halt.org/jip/dir.php?cid=14

and

http://www.halt.org/reform_projects/lawyer_accountability/discipline_system

 

[9] It should be noted that the January 27, 2009 letter referenced was not to myself, Eliot Bernstein, but instead to P. Stephen Lamont who has illegally been acting as an Iviewit Technologies Officer, the CEO, of an Iviewit company located 175 King Street in Armonk New York of which no such company to the best of my knowledge ever existed. I have previously made a Motion to Compel at the Second Circuit in my pending case regarding Lamont’s illegal behavior with the First Department in attempts to create exonerative letters through fraud in collusion with the DDC, which can be found @ http://iviewit.tv/wordpress

[10]http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090618%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20Re%20Lamont%20Signed.pdf

[11]http://www.free-press-release.com/news-andrew-cuomo-ag-protect-the-people-and-christine-anderson-and-not-crooked-lawyers-and-corrupt-government-employees-1255918900.html

and

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-gotti-trial-on-26th-floor-nyc-federal-court-was-mirrored-by15th-floor-testimony-of-the-cleaner-naomi-goldstein-whitewashing-attorneys-in-1st-appel-1256265795.html

[12] October 27, 2009 Letter to Shira A. Scheindlin from Eliot Bernstein http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20091027%20Scheindlin%20Letter%20Regarding%20Anderson%20Criminal%20Elements%20Low.pdf

[13] October 26, 2009 Letter to Shira A. Scheindlin from Terrence “Terry” Finnan who also testified at the Judiciary Committee Hearing in Albany on June 08. 2009.

http://www.exposecorruptessex.com/Scheindlin10269.html

[14]http://www.free-press-release.com/news-us-district-judge-sheindlin-in-nyc-called-to-act-on-revealed-corrupt-ny-first-department-attorney-discipline-and-the-actions-of-the-ny-attorney-genera-1256748458.html

[15] June 08, 2009 Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony of Christine C. Anderson @ 32:00 Minutes on the Timeline (whistleblower) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded

[16] October 28, 2007 Anderson Original Complaint

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf

[17] The Relevant Sections are merely a benchmark guide and other state, federal and international laws may be applicable to your particular circumstances in reviewing or acting in these matters. For a more complete list of applicable sections of law relating to these matters please visit http://Iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm#_Toc107852933

Roy Reardon, Chairman ~ New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department SUICIDE LETTER

I VIEWIT

Tags: eliot bernstein, eric holder, First Department, first department disciplinary, foley & lardner, intel, inventor, iviewit, JUDITH KAYE, kenneth rubenstein, lockheed, marc dreier, martin glenn, meltzer, MICHAEL GREBE, mpeg, mpegla, myclads, ny senate judiciary committee, okun, patent, patentgate, proskauer, ralph winter, RAYMOND A. JOAO, sex, sgi, SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, silicon graphics, steven c. krane, theft, thomas cahill, thomas sjoblom, video, wayne huizenga