IBM accused of WAR CRIMES in APARTHIED LAWSUIT before Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin of the US District Court - Southern District NY. IBM also a named Defendant in Iviewit Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein’s Federal 12 Trillion RICO patent theft lawsuit. Have they disclosed all this to IBM Shareholders???

January 7th, 2010

Judge Allows Apartheid Suit Against Corporations

By JONATHAN PERLOW

ShareThis

     (CN) - A federal judge in Manhattan again allowed a lawsuit to proceed against several corporate giants for their alleged role in aiding South Africa’s oppressive apartheid regime. Daimler AG, General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and IBM are accused of “aiding and abetting” human rights violations under the apartheid government.

     In October, the South African government reversed its position and threw its support behind the class action, brought in 2002 by victims of apartheid crimes, including torture, rape and denationalization.

     The class members filed suit on behalf of “themselves and all black South African citizens” for violations of the law of nations.

     From 1960 to 1994, blacks in South Africa were deprived of their citizenship and were forced to become citizens of tribally based homelands called “Bantustans.”

     U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin gave the suit new life last year when she gave the plaintiff class the opportunity to sue under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The 220-year-old law lets U.S. federal courts hear human rights cases brought by foreigners alleging violations of international law.

     The defendants unsuccessfully sought dismissal, saying corporations are exempt under the statute.

     Judge Scheindlin denied their bid to dismiss the case last spring, and then rejected a motion for “certification of an interlocutory appeal” in the most recent action.

     Her 144-page opinion in April stated that Daimler, GM and Ford should be on the hook for claims that they “aided and abetted torture, extrajudicial killing and apartheid.”

     The automakers are accused of providing armored military vehicles used to suppress marches and worker protests, and of assisting security forces tasked with identifying and torturing anti-apartheid leaders.

     The judge also allowed claims against IBM to proceed, for providing the technology that allowed the South African government to carry out “geographic segregation and denationalization,” according to the plaintiffs.

     Scheindlin said that corporate liability under the Alien Tort Claims Act “is a long-settled question in this Circuit.”

     “On at least nine separate occasions, the 2nd Circuit has addressed ATCA cases against corporations without ever hinting — much less holding — that such cases are barred,” the judge wrote.

     The 2nd Circuit remanded parts of the apartheid cases back to district court.

     In her most recent ruling, she noted that the 2nd Circuit didn’t tackle the issue directly, only stating that it was “assum[ing], without deciding, that corporations … may be held liable for the violations of customary international law.”

     The appeals court added that it was not “reach[ing] the question of whether international law extends the scope of liability to corporations.”

     “The 2nd Circuit has made clear that it has not yet decided the question of corporate liability,” Scheindlin wrote. “However, it has not provided any reason to believe that there are substantial grounds for disagreement about the correct result in a case where that question is presented.”

     In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to intervene in the lower court’s decision to hear the claims, due to the recusal of four justices.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Proskauer (Porksour) Rose Law Firm Going Down in Allen Stanford Ponzi, next the trail of money may lead to Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein’s stolen Trillion Dollar Patents

January 6th, 2010

http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2010/01/stanfords-lawyers.html

AM Law

TPM Shines Spotlight on Allen Stanford’s Lawyers

Posted by Brian Baxter

R. Allen Stanford’s principal in-house and outside lawyers are once again under the glare of the media, this time from Talking Points Memo. The blog looked at the work done by former Greenberg Traurig lawyers Yolanda Suarez and Carlos Loumiet for the disgraced financier. Loumiet left Greenberg for Hunton & Williams in 2001, and Suarez served as Stanford’s legal counsel and chief of staff after working at Greenberg as an associate in the early 1980s.

TPM reports that Loumiet and Suarez played integral roles in shielding Stanford from regulatory scrutiny and forging close ties between the Texas-based businessman and members of Congress. (Federal law enforcement officials are probing Stanford’s congressional ties, according to a recent report by the Miami Herald.)

TPM singled out Loumiet’s work drafting anti-money laundering legislation for Antigua, the Caribbean island nation where Stanford based his offshore operations. (We reported on Greenberg’s work for Stanford in October, picking up on another report from the Herald.) Loumiet touts the work on his current Hunton bio and TPM references an interview the lawyer gave to The Washington Post in 1999 defending Stanford, who also holds Antiguan citizenship.

When Loumiet left Greenberg for Hunton in 2001, he took Stanford’s business with him. (Loumiet referred TPM’s requests for comment to a Hunton spokeswoman, who declined to comment.)

As we noted late last year, the Stanford matter isn’t Loumiet’s first brush with scandal. At Greenberg, where Loumiet served as head of the firm’s international banking practice, he became ensnared in the collapse of Hamilton Bank in 2002.

In June 2008, a federal judge ruled that there was insufficient evidence linking Loumiet to a fraud that caused his client to go under. Unlike his former firm and another partner, who paid almost $1 million in fines without admitting guilt, Loumiet refused to settle with a banking regulator.

But Loumiet and Suarez aren’t the only lawyers to be tarred by their Stanford affiliations. Both Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke have been sued in a class action filed by a group of Stanford clients. Also named in the class action suit was former Stanford general counsel P. Mauricio Alvarado, a Vinson & Elkins alum whose abrupt resignation shortly before the SEC filed charges had some securities lawyers warning in-house counsel to be vigilant.

Ex-Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom, a former SEC attorney and longtime outside counsel to Stanford, resigned from the firm in October. Sjoblom and Proskauer were also sued by a senior Stanford executive early last year.

Stanford, who is reportedly battling demons of his own while he remains incarcerated, is set to go on trial in January 2011.

 

Comments

Report offensive comments to The Am Law Daily.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

MADOFF + STANFORD + DREIER + SATYAM + FISERV + ALBERT HU + The 1031 Tax Group LLC - Edward H. Okun = PROSKAUER ROSE & FOLEY & LARDNER
Check out Inventor Eliot Bernstein Testimony @ The New York Judiciary Committee headed by John L. Sampson @
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=189
Check out Iviewit News - IVIEWIT TRILLION $$ FED SUIT DEFENDANT PROSKAUER ROSE SUED IN GLOBAL CLASS ACTION RE STANFORD PONZI
—
Investors who have been burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams. I personally have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR scam that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM. The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes and evidence, including a car-bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt trying to expose Madoff in a world without regulation.
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford’s attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer’s assets for recovery. First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings. Then at hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by him and Proskauer, his butt on fire. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer.
Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE also in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier, brought in through Raymond A. Joao of Meltzer Lippe after putting 90+ patents of mine in his own name, is also a defendant in the Federal Case.
The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER & A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visit www.iviewit.tv.
The Federal Court cases
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket 08-4873-cv - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
( ) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
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
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot

Other Websites I like:
http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html
http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
Http://www.changecourtsnow.com
http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://www.parentadvocates.org
http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Florida Bar Under Fire for Lack of Regulation in Robert Allen Stanford and Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, Kenneth Marvin defendant in Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Lawsuit

December 29th, 2009

Before reading the article below, one wonders if the Florida Bar has reported their status and liability in the Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Federal Lawsuit to State Auditors???

 

 http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?id=30938&AuthorID=23453

 

 

David Arthur Walters

 

Contempt for The Florida Bar and Supreme Court

12/23/2009 9:26:00 AM

by David Arthur Walters

________________________________________

 

 

Commentary: Allen Sanford and Scott Rothstein should have been nailed in Florida long ago.

 

 

The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court of which the Bar is part and parcel deserve an utterance of contempt for their failure to regulate powerful, politically connected law firms until damage to the public is irreparably done.

 

For example, Greenberg Traurig, some of whose lawyers were implicated in the Hamilton Bank and Allen Stanford scandals, the very firm whose name became infamous in the Abramoff political scandal. But Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, the erstwhile South Florida legal powerhouse led by the now notorious swindler Scott Rothstein, is currently the most glaring example. Rothstein and his colleagues ran a Ponzi-scheme that bilked investors of over $1 billion under the mantle of the firm, using the firm’s letterhead and mingling some of the ill-gotten proceeds with the firm’s accounts while doling out millions of dollars for the benefit of his fine friend Governor Charlie Crist, former Senator Mel Martinez, Senator John McCain, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and the like.

 

The Rothstein firm hired former judges and a mayor, and Rothstein bought police protection from top law enforcement officials. Ironically, he sat on a Bar committee responsible for disciplining unethical conduct of lawyers. Governor Crist appointed him to a judiciary nominating committee just after Rothstein contributed funds to his campaign and the Republican Party.

 

The Rothstein firm doled out huge bonuses to attorneys on the condition they contribute to designated candidates, a fact that could subject them to charges of fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. Furthermore, Rothstein and his law associates created at least 30 shell corporations to launder money, shuffle acquired assets and conceal the identities of the corporate directors and officers involved in the illicit scheme. Berger Singerman, the law firm handling Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler’s bankruptcy, filed a bankruptcy document stated that the books and records of Rothstein’s firm “are in disarray, inadequate and do not contain the typical records that one would expect to be maintained in the normal course of business.” 

 

Frauds and other misconduct would undoubtedly be detected and Florida’s legal profession as well as the Bar spared a great deal of embarrassment and dishonor if the books of law firms were regularly examined by independent certified fraud examiners. But Kenneth L. Marvin, Staff Counsel, Director of Lawyer Regulation for the Florida Bar did not respond to my suggestion to do just that, nor was he interested in law firms as such. Unless he was prevaricating, the Bar’s information system is wholly inadequate to the task of producing any information about the relationship of lawyers to their firms.

 

“We do not keep records pertaining to law firms, since law firms do not have a license to practice law,” Marvin stated in on October 16, 2009 email, in response to my formal request for records appertaining to the involvement of the lawyers of the powerful, politically connected firm of Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has reportedly represented the Florida Bar. In any event, a careful reader could infer from the widely published reports on the Allen Stanford scandal that Greenberg Traurig lawyers colluded with public regulators and lawyers for the State of Florida in setting up the specious trust that enabled Stanford to use his Miami office to launder most of the money he bilked from investors or laundered for others. Banking lawyers were astonished by the trust arrangement, as it appeared contrary to banking law not to mention ethical standards - information as to whether or not any of them filed complaints or inquiries with the Bar as required by its Rules cannot be obtained from the Bar due to the policies that allows it to conceal information from immediate public view and destroy it in short order.

 

“Mr. Walters, I don’t understand why you are so distrustful of the Bar. I had never heard of the Stanford Trust until I read your writings about it,” Marvin stated. “I do not know who you originally spoke to, but we do keep our records under the accused attorney’s name and not the subject matter. If you had asked me about the Stanford Trust, I would have claimed no knowledge, but if you had asked about Carlos Loumiet, I would have recognized that name and recalled that there were newspaper articles about him.”

 

Apparently neither Marvin nor anyone else at the Bar had carefully read the series of Miami Herald articles about the involvement of private and public lawyers in the forging of the Stanford Trust. If a member of the public in want of a lawyer were referred to Carlos E. Loumiet, one of the principal lawyers accused in both the Hamilton Bank fraud and the Stanford Trust fraud, and if he checks the Bar’s website for public information, he will discover that, as of December 22, 2009, Loumiet is a member of the Bar in good standing and that there is no disciplinary history on him for the last 10 years. Indeed, a recent press report described him as “a distinguished member of the Florida Bar.” In fact, a file was opened and recently closed on Loumiet in re the Hamilton Bank fraud, and another file has been opened on him in re the Stanford fraud. Both files are hidden from immediate public view so that the public will be kept in the dark about the investigations unless it makes a public records request about a specific attorney - in one instance, Bar staff denied the existence of a file until this writer insisted that a defense lawyer had publicly declared that disciplinary action was pending. If the Bar in its discretion decides not to pursue a matter or decides that discipline is unwarranted, the file is destroyed hence the Bar is left unaccountable for its actions.

 

“Mr. Marvin,” I responded to Marvin’s email, “Thank you very much for your revelation that The Florida Bar does not keep records appertaining to law firms. I believe I may fairly conclude from your statement that the Bar’s information system must be inadequate and in need of considerable improvement. As it stands, the Bar staff apparently have no way, for example, of producing statistics to demonstrate that there is little or no merit in the widespread belief that the Bar favors large, powerful (i.e. politically connected) firms such as Greenberg Traurig, wherein it is alleged that the individual consciences are too easily submerged. I would think that you and other persons charged with the regulation of the profession would find the organizations of practitioners as interesting as the individuals involved in them, and would make sure that information was kept on that aspect for several good reasons.”

 

Mr. Marvin also responded on behalf of the Executive Director of the Florida Bar and the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court to my constructive suggestions for the improvement of information transparency. My letter included the following suggestion: 

 

“I respectfully suggest that a list of Pending Complaints and Open Disciplinary Cases be maintained on the website and regularly updated until disposed of. Thereafter the initial and dispositive information would be maintained for 10 years on the respective website-available files of the attorneys involved. By ‘Pending Complaints’ I mean each and every complaint received, and by ‘Open Disciplinary Cases’ I mean each and every complaint that Bar counsel decides to pursue. The information available would of course include the name of the attorney, the date and nature of the complaint and the current status of the investigation. If a case is not opened or an investigation not conducted on the complaint, the disposition then posted to the attorney’s website-available file would state the specific reason for not investigating the complaint. When an open case is closed, the specific reason for disposition would likewise be posted to the attorney’s website-available file. As for the confidentiality of open files, Rule 3-7.1 (e) allows for the disclosure of the status of specific cases under investigation. The specification under my suggestion would be any and all open files.”

 

“Please understand that I do not wish to argue with you and I do not set policy,” replied Mr. Marvin on October 27, 2009. Since he was responding for the Executive Director and Chief Justice, it appears that any constructive suggestions sent to the high authorities of the Florida integrated bar would fall on deaf ears since none of the above nor any delegates below “set policy.”  But Marvin informed me that suggestions could be made to a special citizen council controlled by the Bar; but then the Bar would have discretion over what measures if any to adopt.

 

The arrogance of a public institution that does not have to answer to the public and is a law unto itself is exceedingly dangerous to that public, and is deserving of its contempt.

 

To return to the Rothstein scandal, there is little doubt that several members of the legal community and more certainly colleagues at the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler itself knew about the scam or should have known that something was seriously amiss. Indeed, rumors were running rampant in legal circles as to the source of Rothstein’s sudden wealth and the enormous political influence of his legal powerhouse. Lawyers had good reason to wonder where all the money was coming from so fast, for it would have been impossible for the law practice itself to generate such a fabulous fortune virtually overnight. U.S. Senator George LeMieux, a lawyer, former campaign manager and then chief of staff to Governor Crist (who are both now calling for an end to corruption in Florida), did not bother to look the gift horse in the mouth at the time of receipt. He has now admitted that he did not understand where all the money was coming from, pleading that, “You don’t look at someone who’s generous and just criticize.”

 

Perhaps Gary Phillips at Rothstein’s previous firm, Phillips Eiseinger Koss Rosenfeldt and Rothstein, could have nipped the pathological liar in the bud some time ago, as Phillips and his partners got rid of Rothstein after discovering he had lied to a client about filing a complaint and a motion for injunctive relief; but Phillips decided not to report Rothstein to the Bar because he took the Bar’s job into his own hands and erroneously determined that lying to clients is not a legitimate grievance against a lawyer. Bar rules require attorneys to blow the whistle on such misconduct; therefore I forwarded the information on Phillips to Marvin and asked whether the Bar would inquire into the matter. A smooth-talking staff lawyer called me on December 21, 2009 and said there was no file open on Phillips but one might be opened “at the discretion of the Bar.” If a citizen filed a sworn complaint against Phillips, I was informed, he or she would then have access to documents appertaining to the proceedings if any. The complainant could then reveal the information obtained - some states make such a revelation a contempt of court. I pointed out that citizens might not like to go on record against attorneys for fear of retaliation. I recommended that an independent ombudsman be created to file such complaints based on information obtained from the press and interested members of the public. The staff lawyer did not seem interested; why should he be when the integrated bar does not have to answer to the public for anything at all?

 

Of course the Bar would be far more effective if lawyers would only blow the whistle on one another as the Rules of the Bar do require, but a code of silence imposed from the top down of the Bar integrated with the Supreme Court renders them reluctant to do so, despite such ethical mouthing from the Bar as that of its ethical counsel, Elizabeth Tarbert, who recently effused that, even though lawyers may not have actual evidence of something amiss, they cannot bury their heads in the sand if knowledge of wrongdoing might be inferred from circumstances. Seldom are such inferences filed with the Bar, and the ones that Bar counsel and the Good Old Boys on the grievance committees give a free pass to are never brought to the public’s attention and all the evidence is destroyed a year later so that the Bar may not  be brought to task for its prejudices, preferences, and negligence.

 

In any case, what humble lawyer would scruple to draw damning inferences in the form of complaints against the high power that provide not only his privilege to practice his profession but determine his relative success in courts? He might then find himself the defendant in disbarment proceedings presided over by the Good Old Boys he has begged askance of.

 

Indeed, disbarred attorney Mark A. Adams believes he was permanently disbarred from practicing law in Florida because he blew the whistle on members of a powerful, politically connected law firm, Battaglia Ross Dicus & Wein, P.A. He has in fact made numerous public statements alleging corruption of the Florida judiciary and the Attorney General’s office, and has accused specific attorneys of criminal conduct.  He did file a complaint with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. The FDLE forwarded the file (FDLE File 73-5818-134-131) to Susan Austin at the Florida Bar on June 25, 2004. According to Adams, the Florida Bar, instead of pursuing the matter on its own initiative, as it is allowed to do by its own Rules, simply dismissed it on a technicality, that the complaint was not sworn by a complainant. The Florida Bar has been accused by watchdogs of routinely rat-holing numerous grievances against attorneys without inquiry; however that might be, evidence supporting Adam’s claim, that his complaints were ignored, is not retrievable from the Bar because of its record-destruction policy, a Supreme Court policy that creates an appearance of impropriety as it obviously would allow its strong “arm”, the Florida Bar, to behave irresponsibly since its deeds are rendered inscrutable.    

 

I asked Adams if he had some concrete evidence of a quid pro quo between the Battaglia firm lawyers and the judicial officers regarding his allegations of criminal conduct.

 

“Battaglia and his clients were able to get a number of judges to ignore black letter law and the facts to deprive my former client of the pay that was due to him, to make my former client pay Battaglia’s client, and to enter a judgment against me and use a baseless criminal charge to attempt to extort money from me.  That’s explains the benefits to Battaglia.  Regarding the evidence of the benefit to the judges, why would judges ignore the law and the facts and expose themselves to liability unless they were receiving a benefit?” 

 

That is a good question, one that should have been thoroughly investigated by the Florida Bar. We are left to speculate, that the judges could be ignorant, or they could believe they are above the law for some reason or another, say, answering a higher call, or they could be getting definite benefits - favors, payoffs et cetera. Concrete evidence of the latter would of course definitely interest Federal investigators who are not subject to the powerful machinations of the integrated state bar and bench.

 

In Rothstein’s case almost everyone knew or suspected that something was seriously amiss, but nobody was willing to draw derogatory inferences until federal authorities swooped in to end the colossal fraud. And then not a single competent member of the legal circle was surprised, for the fall of Rothstein & Firm was not a matter of if but of when, so obvious had the likelihood of fraud become. Now the general public has some reason to assume, from all the evidence brought forward and the allegations being made, that the integrated bar of Florida is a legally constituted racketeering organization. Therefore an historical recapitulation of the monstrosity called the “integrated bar” is in order:

 

During the Great Depression, Americans were once again sorely plagued by hordes of lawyers, wherefore they were apt to raise once again the revolutionary cry, “Kill the lawyers! Burn down the courthouses!” The high courts of several states, in a supreme exercise of judicial vanity, circled wagons and gazed into their self-flattering mirrors, each reflecting the mutual opinion that supreme courts possess an inherent and absolute power to regulate the practice of law in their respective states without interference from the legislative or executive branches of government. A strong jurisprudential argument was made that only an organization of lawyers dominated by a supreme court are competent to regulate lawyers given the complexity of the law and its practice and the native tendency of litigious lawyers to independent and relativistic thinking. Therefore all lawyers who want to practice should be integrated into a state supreme court system so that the court might adopt and enforce standard scruples thus effectively curb the abuses people were suffering at the hands of unscrupulous lawyers - Plato’s Socrates might argue that lawyers are unscrupulous sophists by virtue of their trade.

 

In Florida, the “integrated bar” concept was embraced and eventually enshrined in the state constitution by way of amendment. But not all states bought the integrated bar movement - independent-minded lawyers were naturally opposed to paying dues and being beholden for their livelihood to a ruling hierarchy of their own disparaged kind. Naturally, there are many opposing arguments to an integrated bar. The absolute integration of bench and bar would belie the very independence from political influence that the judiciary is wont to brag about as its chief virtue when claiming that it protects people from legislative politics. An integrated bar would allow the same forces that rule lawyer-dominated legislatures to rule the judiciary as well, with impunity and without debate from an opposition. Politics is the distribution of power, and the integrated bar, having arrogated to itself the sole power to regulate the most powerful profession pursuant to the prejudices of the dominating political power of its members, would become a virtually unregulated power. There could be no genuine “integrity” in such an integrated bar, no virtue except traditional loyalty to one’s own kind or else. There could be no real balance of powers here. Surely an absolutely independent integrated bar would tend to the absolute corruption of every state in which it is institutionalized. Such an institution would deserve the unmitigated contempt of a democratic people if only the people fully understood its nature. That understanding has not been advanced by the so-called fourth branch of government, the press.

 

A well seasoned investigative reporter with the McClatchy newspaper organization informed this commentator that integrated bar organizations routinely ignore the transgressions of powerful law firms while diligently pressing complaints against small practitioners, who are easily intimidated by the prospect of losing their livelihood. This, in effect, keeps the rank-and-file in line with the ruling political power. We seldom or never see a critical report from the mainstream media addressing the Bar’s favoritism and negligence, which appears to rise to a fraud on the public. Instead, the public is fed pabulum, a steady diet of press releases praising the Bar’s good works, much of it well deserved, and an occasional press release notifying the public that a few small fry have been disciplined. Once in awhile a big fish is fried by the Bar, after he has been caught by law enforcement and convicted.

 

The so-called fourth branch of government, the press, ignores the crucial, political point, obscured by the gospel, as it were, or at least the true perspective is never published. After all, notwithstanding the public’s low albeit envious regard for lawyers as a class, it is difficult to elucidate such an obscured subject as the “integrated bar” so that a clamor might be raised against its inherent conflict of interest and organizational hypocrisy. Furthermore, since the Bar integrated with the Supreme Court is in effect an arm or organ of the Court, since it is thus a law unto itself lorded over by its presiding power, nothing short of a clamor to kill lawyers and burn down courthouses could cause it to mitigate its arrogance and effect the radical reform needed, the disintegration of the integrated bar. Finally, the press is not wont to alienate the hand that feeds it with choice information and free-speech rulings.

 

Yet disintegration of the integrated bar is still possible, as is evidenced by England’s Legal Services Act of 2007, which mandated the end of the legal profession’s self-regulation and separated its regulation from its self-interested representative or political function. The Legal Services Board was appointed on September 1, 2008 pursuant to the Act, and it will be the single independent oversight regulator of legal services in England. The Board will supervise all licensing authorities and oversee lawyer regulation. It is appointed entirely by the government. Most of the appointees are non-lawyers chosen for their regulatory and other public affairs experience, and some are consumer advocates. An Office of Legal Complaints will be established and monitored by the Board, completely independent of the profession, and will deal with consumer complaints according to an ombudsman scheme. The Complaints Commissioner must be a non-lawyer.

 

Much more can and should be said on this subject. The Florida’s integrated bar does deserve a great deal of credit for its many good deeds, but until significant and radical reform of the regulatory function is obtained, its pollution by political factions will create at least the appearance of impropriety, and its negligence alone deserves the public utterance of contempt.

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________

f

 

More News by David Arthur Walters

________________________________________

The Pickle Chiseler - 12/1/2009 8:00:00 AM

 

To Hell with the Credit Rating Agencies - 10/28/2009 8:11:00 AM

 

Letter in re The Florida Clam Bar - 10/17/2009 8:11:00 AM

 

Where was The Florida Bar in all this? - 10/15/2009 9:05:00 AM

 

The New Chase Bank - 9/5/2009 8:16:00 AM

 

Greenberg Traurig & The Stanford Fraud - 8/31/2009 8:48:00 AM

 

The Stanford Fraud & The Florida Bar - 8/27/2009 6:48:00 AM

 

Singing the Health Insurance Blues Again - 8/3/2009 6:31:00 AM

 

For the Integrity of the Integrated Florida Bar - 7/20/2009 6:08:00 AM

 

The Fraudster, The Firm, and The Florida Bar - 7/8/2009 7:36:00 AM

 

Scientific Friendship - 6/27/2009 8:52:00 AM

 

On Open Publishing via Themestream.com by David Arthur Walters - 6/22/2009 6:48:00 AM

 

Helium’s English Is Not Good Enough By HE™ - 6/18/2009 7:18:00 AM

 

A Much-Heralded Cock’s Life in South Beach - 6/8/2009 6:28:00 AM

 

Queen Latifah’s SOBE Fatburger - 6/6/2009 6:43:00 AM

 

Back to the Future of Journalism by David Arthur Walters - 6/1/2009 8:32:00 AM

 

Topical Helium - 5/7/2009 10:25:00 AM

 

Introduction to the Helium.com scheme - 5/2/2009 6:31:00 AM

 

Who is to blame? - 4/18/2009 7:38:00 AM

 

In Praise of Dividends - 3/24/2009 2:03:00 PM

 

White Niggas - 2/21/2009 8:42:00 AM

 

Chairman Benanke’s Dream - 2/14/2009 7:57:00 AM

 

Housing Rescue – Abolish PAL Rules & Accelerate Depreciation - 12/18/2008 8:41:00 AM

 

The Paulson Plans - 10/18/2008 7:51:00 AM

 

Foul Language for Investment Bankers - 9/27/2008 6:52:00 AM

 

We do not NEED Wall Street - 9/23/2008 3:37:00 PM

 

Bank Run! - 9/19/2008 7:41:00 AM

 

Reminder: Beware of Speaking in Tongues in High Places - 9/18/2008 7:48:00 AM

 

Republican Seachange in Hawaii - 9/12/2008 4:26:00 PM

 

Not a maverick at all - 9/8/2008 5:52:00 AM

 

We Were Betrayed by the Media - 7/30/2008 3:03:00 PM

 

Right is above Might - 4/5/2008 10:46:00 AM

 

Censorship Perfected by the Kansas City Star - 4/5/2008 10:26:00 AM

 

The Arrogant and Dismissive Times - 3/30/2008 3:49:00 PM

 

Justice or Death - 3/29/2008 5:14:00 PM

 

Against War-Mongering Liars - 3/29/2008 1:16:00 PM

 

Kansas City’s Color Line - 3/29/2008 8:23:00 AM

 

Referendum Madness in Miami Beach - 10/23/2007 4:46:00 AM

 

Quacking Duck - Artist Housing in South Beach - 10/5/2007 8:29:00 AM

 

White Trash Need Not Apply - 9/10/2007 8:47:00 AM

 

Miami Beach House of Equivocation - Affordable Housing for Artists - 9/3/2007 8:14:00 AM

 

Portrait of The Struggling CANDO Artist - 7/23/2007 8:42:00 AM

 

Miami Herald Muckraking - 6/25/2007 11:43:00 AM

 

America’s Future Lies On The Water - 5/2/2007 9:44:00 AM

 

The Compassionate Heart of America - 1/22/2007 10:36:00 AM

 

President Bush a Revisionist Historian - 12/15/2006 5:32:00 AM

 

Letter to President Bush on Victory - 12/15/2006 5:30:00 AM

 

Smoking Gun Letter to President Bush - 12/15/2006 5:25:00 AM

 

Christmas Letter to President of Iran - 12/11/2006 10:25:00 AM

 

Benedictine Deconstruction - 10/2/2006 12:10:00 PM

 

Condotelworlde - 9/10/2006 10:22:00 AM

 

I Was Heartcrunched By Crunch Fitness - 9/1/2006 6:53:00 AM

 

World’s Worst Burger King  - 8/30/2006 5:50:00 AM

 

Ideal Customer Service and Support - 7/3/2006 6:44:00 AM

 

The Man and his Pigs in Hawaii - 6/24/2006 8:14:00 AM

 

Note on the New Fascism - 6/23/2006 6:33:00 AM

 

Tundra Puta Releases Poem! - 6/16/2006 4:39:00 PM

 

Israel an Idol? - 6/12/2006 9:24:00 AM

 

Indian Woman Bills USA for Reparations - 6/2/2006 8:36:00 AM

 

Get your free doctorate in political science! - 5/15/2006 11:51:00 AM

 

Ford’s Anti-Terrorism Proviso - 5/13/2006 7:48:00 AM

 

Be Not Thus Deceived - 5/12/2006 6:40:00 AM

 

The Medusa Do - 4/24/2006 9:34:00 AM

 

The Presiding Spirit Has No Reason to Think - 4/6/2006 4:54:00 PM

 

Teflon Bush? - 3/18/2006 8:14:00 AM

 

Miami Beach Official Declares Journalist Crazy - 3/13/2006 10:21:00 AM

 

Malicious Dissent - 2/25/2006 10:26:00 AM

 

The Invisible Indivisible Nation - 2/25/2006 8:50:00 AM

 

On The True Principles of Patriotism - 2/25/2006 8:17:00 AM

 

The Patriotic Pledge - 2/25/2006 6:54:00 AM

 

The High Oath - 2/18/2006 6:41:00 AM

 

Tomatoes Live In The Now - 2/17/2006 9:57:00 AM

 

Jayhawk History - 2/17/2006 5:07:00 AM

 

Heresy Might Be The True Religion - 2/8/2006 3:03:00 PM

 

Bringing Homeless People Home - 2/6/2006 7:43:00 AM

 

Mister Netwit’s Faction - 1/28/2006 7:20:00 AM

 

Condemned to Freedom - 1/27/2006 4:11:00 PM

 

Am I Blind? - 1/20/2006 1:39:00 PM

 

The Compassionate Heart of America - 1/20/2006 11:27:00 AM

 

I am a Gringo American - 1/6/2006 6:32:00 AM

 

The Most Important Subject in the World - 12/23/2005 7:10:00 AM

 

I am I - 12/23/2005 6:21:00 AM

 

Editor Rejects Masterpiece! - 12/19/2005 6:33:00 AM

 

Crawl Space Revisited - 12/15/2005 8:22:00 AM

 

Top Real Estate Woman - 12/4/2005 10:18:00 AM

 

Kabbalah Krackpot? - 12/1/2005 5:11:00 PM

 

Michel Carel on Contemporary Art - 12/1/2005 3:07:00 PM

 

Letter to President Bush re Historical Revisionism - 11/13/2005 4:41:00 PM

 

Under God is no laughing matter - 11/12/2005 9:06:00 AM

 

The Administration is Drunk With Power - 11/11/2005 5:04:00 PM

 

Where are the Americans at home? - 11/8/2005 3:55:00 PM

 

Quranic Retaliation - 11/6/2005 11:51:00 AM

 

Having Faith in Nothing - 11/6/2005 10:44:00 AM

 

El Trabajo es un Derecho - 10/5/2005 3:56:00 PM

 

The Rise of American Hypocrisy - 9/18/2005 10:20:00 AM

 

Diane’s Transition no a traves - 9/5/2005 7:02:00 AM

 

We Say They Say - 8/24/2005 4:58:00 PM

 

The Sacred Family - 8/14/2005 4:48:00 PM

 

Still Mountain and Providing Nourishment - 7/18/2005 7:27:00 AM

 

Authorsden Author Accused of Pornographic Displays - 7/16/2005 9:23:00 AM

 

Gentrification is a Dirty Word - 7/12/2005 8:46:00 AM

 

Moving the Ten Commandments - 6/28/2005 7:50:00 AM

 

Seditious Parenting - 6/20/2005 11:52:00 AM

 

Rumsfeld Reveals Lawless Policy - 6/18/2005 8:38:00 AM

 

When will They stop lying? - 6/14/2005 8:34:00 AM

 

The Solution in Iraq - 6/14/2005 8:06:00 AM

 

Remembing the Sons of Reagan - 6/13/2005 6:12:00 AM

 

Darwin Leon’s Manifesto - 6/1/2005 9:14:00 AM

 

The Gray Future of Ten Dollars per Hour - 5/23/2005 11:14:00 AM

 

The Jingo Press and The Untied Hates of America - 5/19/2005 7:22:00 AM

 

Reading the Kansas City Star - 5/14/2005 7:03:00 AM

 

The Low Brow Race Arrives! - 5/5/2005 2:13:00 PM

 

President Eric Rudolph - 5/2/2005 11:58:00 AM

 

Multitasking Stupidity - 3/9/2005 10:22:00 AM

 

A truly conservative Social Security solution - 2/17/2005 7:26:00 AM

 

Euthanasia recommended for Social Security - 2/4/2005 6:40:00 AM

 

To Rakel With Love - 1/21/2005 7:14:00 AM

 

Art Judges in South Beach Florida - 1/17/2005 9:21:00 AM

 

Down with Artistic Urbanism! Up with the Art of Living! - 1/13/2005 5:18:00 PM

 

Artébassé - Bass Museum of Art Exposed Again - 1/12/2005 1:53:00 PM

 

A Young Lion Appears in the Brush - 12/31/2004 10:55:00 AM

 

i am I - 12/20/2004 1:47:00 PM

 

Cuban dancers defect to Vegas bright lights - 11/15/2004 8:28:00 AM

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

When I-View-It Comes to Town ~ All Hell Breaks Loose for Intel Corp, SGI, Lockheed, IBM and the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department

December 8th, 2009

Ieyeball31VIEWeyeball31IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

A few examples below may make you think when Iviewit comes to town, all hell breaks loose. For or Four examples,

1.   Feds’ insider trading wiretap snares IBM heir apparent

The heir apparent to IBM CEO Sam Palmisano has been arrested and charged with insider trading, as US authorities cracked down on an alleged $20m scheme involving shares in some of the IT industry’s biggest names. Full Article at The Register

 

Other Executives charged included Robert Moffatt, senior vice president and executive in IBM’s systems and technology group,

Then read the email below to Mr. Palmisano from Iviewit only a couple months prior.

2.   Intel

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20091113-712436.html Intel Sewell departs Intel right after letter to him and CEO Otellini who is rumored to be on way out. 

Intel Capital where Hassan Miah came from and where he went back we find fishy practices leading to arrests

3.   SGI – Iviewit sends over Intel letter and more to SGI counsel informing them of 12 count 12 trillion lawsuit and more from Real3D, they run into bankruptcy, which they had just emerged from and this time they forgot to notify court of liabilities and then the Ropes and Gray Lawyer gets busted in insider case with the lot of scum @ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aBxccSGF8pZQ

 

4.   Proskauer or Porksour, well we all know that house of cards has crumbled with Stanford and all the other issues and ones coming.

 

5.   New York First Department Disciplinary – Unfolding fast on an ethics department run by the mob thanks to heroic whistleblower efforts etc. and my favorite quote from Gotti’s mom to the judges in NY, the mob calling the judges mobsters, how apropos.

And the fearsome John ‘Junior’ Gotti, son of the late Mafia boss, also seems to have a henpecking mother.

On trial in New York, accused of gutting a man in a bar fight and facing charges of extortion, kidnapping, robbery and shootings, Gotti appears to be more concerned about the attentions of his mother, Victoria.  At his trial, Mrs Gotti yelled at the judges and prosecutors: ‘F***ing gangsters! You sons of b****s! Put your sons in there.’

Read more @

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1226492/Mums-final-word-As-boxer-David-Haye-gets-left-hook-mother-tough-men-crumble-maternal-henpecking.html#ixzz0YpdC1OM6

From: Eliot I. Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:20 AM
To: Robert C. Weber, Senior Vice President, Legal & Regulatory Affairs, & General Counsel @ IBM Corporation (rweber@us.ibm.com); Robert C. Weber (roswellc@us.ibm.com); IBM Non-Management Directors, c/o Chair, IBM Directors and Corporate Governance Committee, International Business Machines Corporation, (nonmanagementdirectors@us.ibm.com); Samuel J. Palmisano, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer @ IBM Corporation (Sam@us.ibm.com)
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com); Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. - Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris (MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com)
Subject: FEDERAL COMPLAINT SERVICE Docket No. 08-4873-cv FINAL SIGNED BRIEF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ 13988ll.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional

 

Samuel and Robert,

Please accept the following as service of my Brief in the USCA 2nd Circ. as IBM Corp. is a named Defendant in these matters.  Please report this liability to all proper regulatory agencies, shareholders, and liability carriers.  Thank you, Eliot Bernstein

From: Eliot I. Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:05 PM
To: Deborah Holmes, Deputy Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Pro Se Cases @ United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; Civil Cases @ United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Cc: Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire; Marc R. Garber Esq. @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. - Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris; ‘Andy Dietz’; Barry Becker @ Rock-It Cargo USA, Inc.; iviewit@iviewit.tv; ‘Guy Iantoni’; Frank Brady @ Expose Corrupt Courts
Subject: Docket No. 08-4873-cv FINAL SIGNED BRIEF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ 13988ll.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional

 

I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

Dear Deborah,

 

I have enclosed, per our conversations and your instructions, a PDF copy of my FINAL SIGNED BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN USCA 2nd Circ for Docket No. 08-4873-cv.  I have also sent the document via US Mail as you specified and thus this electronic communication and the mailed copy should constitute a timely filing.  I have attached in the document the following,

1. US Postmaster Certified Letter Receipts showing the same Document as attached herein has been mailed and postmarked with the date Friday, February 27th 2009,

2. A signed Electronic Notification Agreement,

3. A Signed Anti-Virus Certification Form of which a virus check was performed,

4. A Signed Notice of Appearance Form and

5. A Signed Brief.

 If you need additional information, please feel free to contact me. 

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
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
others I like

www.deniedpatent.com by Crystal L. Cox

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com by Frank Brady aka Kevin McKeown

www.judgewatch.org/index.html  by Elena Ruth Sassower and Doris Sassower

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Iviewit 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

 

 Ieyeball31VIEWeyeball31IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

 

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 ),

I.      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 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. ]

II.      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

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:

a.         The Law Offices of Proskauer Rose LLP

b.         Foley & Lardner LLP

c.         Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq.

d.         Joanna F. Smith, Esq.

e.         Todd C. Norbitz

f.          Anne B. Sekel

g.         Alan W. Friedberg, Esq. (provide Special Inquiry #) [Emphasis Added]

h.         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=14 and 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. 

IV.      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 26th Floor of the Federal Courthouse, the First Department ETHICS DEPARTMENT trial on the 15th 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.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

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.

V.      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. 

VI.      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:

a.       The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department

b.      The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee

c.       Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the DDC

d.      Sherry K. Cohen, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC

e.       Naomi Goldstein ~ “The Cleaner”, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC

f.       David Spokony, Deputy Clerk First Department

g.      Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Former Clerk of the First Department and current Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals Southern District

h.      Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli of the Appellate Division, First Department

4.      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.

 

I.      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:

1.       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;

2.       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;

3.       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;

4.       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;

5.       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;

6.       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;

7.       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;

8.       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;

9.       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;

10.    INTEL Corporation;

11.    Silicon Graphics Inc.;

12.    Lockheed Martin Corporation;

13.    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;

14.    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;

15.    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;

16.    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;

17.    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;

18.    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”);

19.    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;

20.    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;

21.    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;

22.    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;

23.    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;

24.    Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;

25.    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;

26.    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;

27.    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;

28.    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;

29.    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;

30.    David B. Simon, Esq. (“D. Simon”);

31.    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;

32.    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;

33.    Davis Polk & Wardell;

34.    Ropes & Gray LLP;

35.    Sullivan & Cromwell LLP;

36.    Judge Martin Glenn at the United States Bankruptcy Court ~ Southern District of New York

37.    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;

38.    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;

39.    SKULL AND BONES; The Russell Trust Co.; Yale Law School;

40.    Council on Foreign Relations;

41.    The Bilderberg Group;

42.    The Federalist Society;

43.    The Bradley Foundation;

44.    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;

A.            United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 08-4873-cv

B.            (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;

1. STATE OF NEW YORK;

2. THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;

3. 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;

4. ESTATE OF STEPHEN KAYE, in his professional and individual capacities;

5. MATTHEW M. TRIGGS in his official and individual capacity for The Florida Bar and his professional and individual capacities as a partner of Proskauer;

6. JON A. BAUMGARTEN, in his professional and individual capacities;

7. SCOTT P. COOPER, in his professional and individual capacities;

8. BRENDAN J. O’ROURKE, in his professional and individual capacities;

9. LAWRENCE I. WEINSTEIN, in his professional and individual capacities;

10.    WILLIAM M. HART, in his professional and individual capacities;

11.    DARYN A. GROSSMAN, in his professional and individual capacities;

12.    JOSEPH A. CAPRARO JR., in his professional and individual capacities;

13.    JAMES H. SHALEK; in his professional and individual capacities;

14.    GREGORY MASHBERG, in his professional and individual capacities;

15.    JOANNA SMITH, in her professional and individual capacities;

16.    TODD C. NORBITZ, in his professional and individual capacities;

17.    ANNE SEKEL, in his professional and individual capacities;

18.    JIM CLARK, in his professional and individual capacities;

19.    STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA;

20.    FLORIDA SUPREME COURT;

21.    HON. CHARLES T. WELLS, in his official and individual capacities;

22.    HON. HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, in his official and individual capacities;

23.    HON. R. FRED LEWIS, in his official and individual capacities;

24.    HON. PEGGY A. QUINCE, in his official and individual capacities;

25.    HON. KENNETH B. BELL, in his official and individual capacities;

26.    THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual capacities;

27.    DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and individual capacities;

28.    DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA;

29.    CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA.;

30.    ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and individual capacities;

31.    ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual capacities;

32.    PAUL CURRAN in his official and individual capacities;

33.    MARTIN R. GOLD in his official and individual capacities;

34.    SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT;

35.    CATHERINE O’HAGEN WOLFE in her official and individual capacities;

36.    HON. ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI in her official and individual capacities;

37.    HON. RICHARD T. ANDRIAS in his official and individual capacities;

38.    HON. DAVID B. SAXE in his official and individual capacities;

39.    HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN in his official and individual capacities;

40.    HON. LUIZ A. GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;

41.    SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT;

42.    SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND  DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE;

43.    HON. A. GAIL PRUDENTI in her official and individual capacities;

44.    HON. JUDITH  S. KAYE in her official and individual  capacities;

45.    STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION;

46.    ANTHONY CARTUSCIELLO in his official and individual capacities;

47.    LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;

48.    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;

49.    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;

50.    COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;

51.    VIRGINIA STATE BAR;

52.    ANDREW H. GOODMAN in his official and individual capacities;

53.    NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual capacities;

54.    MARY W. MARTELINO in her official and individual capacities;

55.    LIZBETH L. MILLER, in her official and individual capacities;

56.    MPEGLA LLC; LAWRENCE HORN, in his professional and individual capacities;

57.    INTEL CORP.; LARRY PALLEY, in his professional and individual capacities;

58.    SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.;

59.    LOCKHEED MARTIN Corp;

60.    EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE;

61.    ALAIN POMPIDOU in his official and individual capacities;

62.    WIM VAN DER EIJK in his official and individual capacities;

63.    LISE DYBDAHL in her official and personal capacities;

64.    DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.;

65.    ROYAL O’BRIEN, in his professional and individual capacities;

66.    HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional and individual capacities;

67.    WAYNE HUIZENGA, JR., in his professional and individual capacities;

68.    BART A. HOUSTON, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;

69.    BRADLEY S. SCHRAIBERG, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;

70.    WILLIAM G. SALIM, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;

71.    BEN ZUCKERMAN, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities;

72.    SPENCER M. SAX, in his professional and individual capacities;

73.    ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;

74.    JOHNNIE E. FRAZIER in his official and individual capacities;

75.    IVIEWIT, INC., a Florida corporation;

76.    IVIEWIT, INC., a Delaware corporation;

77.    IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Uview.com, Inc.);

78.    UVIEW.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;

79.    IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Iviewit Holdings, Inc.);

80.    IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation;

81.    IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Florida corporation;

82.    I.C., INC., a Florida corporation;

83.    IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation;

84.    IVIEWIT.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

85.    IVIEWIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

86.    IVIEWIT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation;

87.    IBM CORPORATION;

C.      Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY

1.       (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT;

2.       (07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.;

3.       (07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.;

4.       (08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.;

5.       (08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.;

6.       (08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.;

7.       (08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al.;

8.       (08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.;

9.       (08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.;

10.    (08 cv 6368)   John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

 

45.    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.

 

II.      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 matters including 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.

 

III.      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.

 

IV.      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

 

V.      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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

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


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Iviewit Current Events | No Comments »

IVIEWIT LETTER TO US FED JUDGE SHIRA A. SCHEINDLIN RE CRIMINAL “WHISTLEBLOWER” ALLEGATIONS in Christine C. Anderson v. New York State et al. Docket 07cv09599 alleging Disciplinary Complaint Fixing by the “CLEANER” for US Attorneys, New York District Attorneys and ADA’s; Code of Conduct for US Judges Canon 3B(5), Protecting the People

October 29th, 2009

I eyeball31VIEWeyeball31IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

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

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse
500 Pearl St.
New York, NY 10007-1312

Re: CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS in Christine C. Anderson v. New York State et al. (07cv09599); Code of Conduct for US Judges Canon 3B(5), Protecting the People

Dear Hon. Shira Scheindlin,

Please take appropriate action in reporting the alleged criminal misconduct of attorneys apparent in the Christine C. Anderson v. New York State et al. (07cv09599) action before you to appropriate authorities. The revised Code of Conduct for Judges, effective July 1, 2009, in Canon 3D(5) says, “A judge should take appropriate action upon learning of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood … a lawyer violated applicable rules of conduct.” Also, please consider the Commentary to this Canon.
The Anderson “Whistleblower” lawsuit, coined a “Whistleblower” by yourself, revealed conduct, including “Whitewashing” of complaints by attorneys, including but not limited to, from the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department ~ Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney violating DR 1-102 A (1), (3), (4) and (5) of the NY Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility and Law. Further revealed were allegations of a “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein, Deputy Chief Counsel of the First Department. Attorneys also allegedly violated NY Penal laws requiring criminal investigation, including but not limited to:
§ 195.00 Official misconduct,
§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree,
§ 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree,
§ 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree. (class D felony).
The attorneys , including but not limited to, from the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department ~ Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney also violated, Federal Criminal Law § 241 Conspiracy against Rights, not only against Christine Anderson, but also against the class of people whose complaints were allegedly “cleansed,” and the class ‘The People of NY.”
Anderson also provided testimony of a similar nature, with similar CRIMINAL allegations of Whitewashing, Favoritism and Cronyism for favored Law Firms and Lawyers, at a New York Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Chaired by Hon. Senator John L. Sampson, which can be found @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded Anderson is the second speaker.
Another issue requiring appropriate action concerns the failure of the NY Attorney General’s Office to do its duty under,
NY Executive Law: § 63
General duties. The attorney-general shall: Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state is interested…to protect the interest of the state…
and under,
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.
The Attorney General’s office representing the State Defendants in Anderson, creates a Conflict of Interest by conflicting their offices from representing Anderson and the People of New York as obligated, acting to Obstruct Justice, as the Attorney General is charged with investigating Public Office Corruption, leaving no one guarding the hen house. Certainly, the NY Attorney General’s Office based on Anderson’s revelations in your Federal Court now has legal obligations to investigate Anderson’s claims, although the conflicts should have been assessed prior to their now conflicted position. Obviously, being in the same courtroom when Anderson reveals “Cleaners” and the likes leaves the Attorney General’s Office calling for criminal investigations of their current clients and perhaps officials from their offices, notifying the appropriate Inspector Generals and Investigatory Agencies.
These criminal matters and the need for criminal investigations are not something for the jury in the civil case to decide, unless the court so decides. I have copied this correspondence to the attorneys for Christine Anderson and to the NY Attorney General so that they may have input and so this is not an ex parte communication. I am also unclear as to if this an ex parte communication of my case, 1:07-cv-11196-SAS, which is on Appeal after your “legally relating” my case to the Anderson “Whistleblower” case? I do not know whether all of the attorneys affected are admitted before this court.
Please do what is required by your Oath of Office, your Judicial Canons and any other legal obligations requiring your reporting the allegations levied by Anderson in Your Court, of disciplinary complaint Whitewashing for the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney, as well as, all other alleged Criminal Activity exposed by the “Whistleblower” Anderson, to ALL appropriate authorities and investigators your obligations require.
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
www.iviewit.tv
iviewit@iviewit.tv love/hate mail

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 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

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

United States District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin In New York City Called To Act On WHISTLEBLOWER Revealed Corrupt Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department and Departmental Disciplainy Committee And The Actions Of The NY Attorney General Office under Andrew Cuomo

October 29th, 2009

FREE PRESS RELEASE @ 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
——————————————————————————–
US District Judge [Scheindlin] Sheindlin In NYC Called To Act On Revealed Corrupt NY First Department Attorney Discipline And The Actions Of The NY Attorney General’s Office

2009-10-28 By TFinnan

Federal Judge Scheindlin in NYC called to act concerning misconduct by attorneys within and without the NY 1st Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and acts of NY Attorney General’s Office

For_Immediate_Release:

(Free-Press-Release.com) October 28, 2009, Keene NY — Terence Finnan has called upon US District Judge Scheindlin in NYC Federal District Court to report the attorneys’ criminal and unethical conduct revealed in “Christine Anderson V NYS” trial, now before her, for appropriate action, as required by the New Code of Conduct for United States Judges, effective beginning on 7/1/2009.

Judge Scheindlin was called upon to act concerning misconduct by attorneys within and without the NY 1st Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee which violated Disciplinary Rules and the NY Penal laws: § 195.00 Official misconduct, § 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration, § 175.20 Tampering with public records,and § 175.25 Tampering with public records.

Mr.Finnan asked for appropriate action concerning the NY Attorney General’s Office actions in the “Anderson” trial before her and its proper duties required under NY Executive Law §63 “…to protect the interest of the state”

Mr. Finnan’s letter dated 10/26/2009 was sent to Judge Scheindlin and can be seen at http://www.exposecorruptessex.com/Scheindlin10269.html.

Judge Scheindlin was asked to take appropriate action for all criminal and unethical conduct revealed in the Christine Anderson trial before her in US District Court and concerning the proper role for the NY Attorney General’s Office in that trial.

####

For more information:
Visit our website: http://www.ExposeCorruptEssex.com

Keywords: Judge Scheindlin, NY Attorney General, NY 1st Department Corruption, Christine Anderson

Contact us: PO Box 354 Keene NY 12942 Phone 518-576-9734 tfinn@ExposeCorruptEssex.com

——————————————————————————–

Source: http://www.Free-Press-Release.com/

Tags:
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

CONFLICTS FORCE PROSECUTOR OFF MADOFF INVESTIGATION, SEE RELATED STORY: TRILLION DOLLAR IVIEWIT INVENTOR ELIOT BERNSTEIN FILES CONFLICTS & OBSTRUCTION MOTIONS @ US SECOND CIRCUIT & SDNY BK COURTS REGARDING PROSKAUER ROSE, FOLEY & LARDNER, INTEL, SGI, LOCKHEED AND MORE!!!

October 12th, 2009

In what seems to some, as never ending Bizarre twists of Conflicts and more in the $65 Billion dollar Bernard Madoff Ponzi Investigation, the newly appointed Chief of the Criminal Division in the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York, Richard B. Zabel, has recently been forced off the Madoff Investigation. Zabel’s father, William Zabel, represents Jeffrey Picower of Palm Beach, Florida who is allegedly complicit in the Madoff scheme according to the SDNY Bankruptcy Trustee in the Madoff case.

The story linked from ABC News reported by Brian Ross and Joseph Rhee on October 9, 2009. Preet Bharara, who previously was the chief counsel to Senator Charles E. Schumer, confirmed as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York in August 2009, a short time ago. Now, Bharra’s Chief of the Criminal Division Richard Zabel just Appointed this week, October 2009, is removed from all Madoff Investigation matters due to Conflicts of Interest.

“He has recused himself from any involvement in the Madoff case,” a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s office, Rebekah Carmichael, told ABCNews.com Friday. Zabel’s appointment announced Tuesday. The spokeswoman declined to provide any details about who would oversee and supervise the Madoff investigation.

In court documents, trustee lawyers allege Picower was the “biggest beneficiary of Madoff’s scheme,” clearing more than $7.2 billion. The trustee alleged the money was “a form of compensation by Madoff to Picower for perpetuating the Ponzi scheme.” The U.S. Attorney’s office declined to say whether Picower is considered a target of the criminal investigation.

In what has received little if any real attention from the major media sources currently, former US Attorney General Michael Mukasey under former President Bush had previously recused himself from the Madoff Affairs while acting as the top US Attorney General allegedly due to the work of his son Marc Mukasey who was representing Madoff’s right hand man Frank DiPascali. DiPascali has since Pled Guilty in Federal court to Fraud charges in August, the same month Bharra was confirmed by the US Senate to take over the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District.

Marc Mukasey has worked with Rudy Guliani’s firm during these years while Guliani’s former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik awaits trial on federal charges in White Plains, New York including allegations of taking several hundred thousand dollars of renovations from a construction company allegedly connected to organized crime families.

According to one source, Lawyers in the Madoff case say another set of indictments expected shortly after Labor Day have been held up as a new prosecutorial team settles in to the U.S. Attorney’s office in Manhattan.

For a link to the ABC News story, see below @

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/10/madoff-chaos-top-us-prosecutor-forced.html

In related news, Trillion Dollar Inventor, Eliot I. Bernstein filed Motions which are still pending at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to address the very types of conflicts in his 12 Count 12 Trillion Dollar RICO, Anti-trust and related lawsuit, that have surfaced above in the Madoff case. The Bernstein Motions also discuss Conflicts centering on the Madoff saga where the Proskauer Rose law firm publicly identified as having the most clients in the Madoff scheme while simultaneously being at the heart of allegations in the Trillion-dollar Iviewit saga now known as “Patentgate”. Inventor Bernstein’s Motion at the US Second Circuit is to Compel the Court to address Conflicts of Interest and other matters according to law which have been ignored while the Court and attorneys perpetuate never ending Conflicts.

For a link to the Motion to Compel @ http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=78

Another Proskauer / Madoff tie came from the SEC OIG stinging report on Madoff harshly criticizing lax regulators for overlooking the Madoff information from WHISTLEBLOWERS & others inside the SEC, for years. According to TPM, in 2004 an SEC attorney, Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, notified the SEC of the Ponzi but was forced out of her job, the SEC later settling a claim filed by Lightfoot. Upon termination, Lightfoot turned over the Madoff file to Jacqueline Wood who then presumably buried the report that could have exposed the Ponzi in 04. SEC OIG’s report mentions Wood of Proskauer throughout the entire report as a key figure in the regulatory failure. http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2009/oig-509.pdf . After leaving the SEC, Wood took a Proskauer partnership.

Inventor Bernstein’s RICO and related case was marked legally “related” in the US District Court of Judge Shira Scheindlin to the federal Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson who has been exposing systemic corruption within the Manhattan based NYS First Department Appellate Division where Wall Street lawyers are regulated. Anderson subjected to threats, assault and intimidation for exposing the criminal activities of the First Department. The Anderson case is heading to trial soon and now scheduled to begin Jury Selection on Oct 13, 2009 if not delayed by the appearance of recent additional counsel for Anderson.

Inventor Bernstein also has a Motion to Disqualify pending in the SDNY Bankruptcy Court of Judge Martin Glenn for Judge Glenn’s repeatedly failing to respond to and address conflicts of interest in the Bankruptcy proceedings of Silicon Graphics Inc. ( SGI ). SGI filed a second protection petition in Chapter 11 just 6 days after receiving Notice from Bernstein of a Formal SEC Complaint filed by Bernstein alleging a possible Trillion Dollar fraud involving the Intel Corporation ( Intel ), SGI and Defense giant Lockheed Martin ( Lockheed ). Intel, SGI and Lockheed were owners of Real3d Inc., a graphics company located in Orlando, Florida on Lockheed property whose history traces back to the Apollo Lunar Space projects. Real3d Inc was under signed Non Disclosure Agreement and Licensing Agreements and more with Bernstein and his companies Iviewit. The technologies were tested, validated and used in the Real3d Labs and leading Engineers from Intel, Lockheed and SGI and Real3d called the technologies “priceless.”

Formal Intel SEC complaint found @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20FINAL%20Intel%20SEC%20Complaint%20SIGNED2073.pdf

Inventor Bernstein and his family suffered an Iraqi style Car Bombing of their Family Minivan in Boynton Beach, Florida while preparing Court papers relating to the Trillion Dollar fraud, intellectual property and Patent theft. The claims have elevated to charges of Fraud Upon The United States Patent & Trademark Offices ( USPTO ), World Patent Agencies, the Federal Small Business Administration and more. The Commissioner of Patents suspended Bernstein’s patents several years ago while Harry I. Moatz of the USPTO’s Office of Enrollment and Discipline investigates attorneys involved in the Fraud from Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner and more with Federal Agents. Bernstein’s former patent counsel Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer and MPEGLA counsel, is alleged to have used Bernstein’s invention to enrich his patent pooling schemes at MPEGLA while using Anticompetitive Monopolistic Practices to annihilate Bernstein and his companies. Proskauer has since acquired Rubenstein and control of the patent pools, blocking Bernstein, their client, from his royalties. Full pictorial evidence of the car bombing found @ www.iviewit.tv .

In the SDNY Bankruptcy Court of Judge Glenn, a major Wall Street law firm, Davis Polk & Wardell LLP ( DPW ) ) was found to be simultaneously representing Lockheed, Silicon Graphics, the Accountants for Silicon Graphics, and major Market players like Morgan Stanley and CIBC at the same time in the case and more. Sales transactions between Lockheed, Silicon Graphics and Intel are at issue in the BK creating obvious and overwhelming Conflicts of Interest for the law firm. Inventor Bernstein also pointed out to the Bankruptcy Court that the law firm had recruited back to the firm former SEC Enforcement officer Linda Chatman Thomsen who left the SEC in Feb. 2009 after coming under fire for the SEC failures in the Madoff matters. According to published sources, Linda Chatman Thomsen recruited back to the DPW firm just 4 days after Inventor Bernstein filed an Emergency Motion in the Bankruptcy Court announcing the related Trillion Dollar fraud and other allegations.

For an interactive Link to the Written Testimony recently submitted by Inventor Bernstein to the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee with press releases and links attached, see: http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=165

Other Important Links

Whistleblower Anderson calls for Special Prosecutor
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/09/ny-state
NY Ethics Scandal tied to International Espionage & Satellite Communications Intercepts
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/04/ny-ethic
Inventor EIB petitions the White House, President Obama & US AG Eric Holder
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf
R3D - Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real3D
Bernard Madoff SEC’s Revolving Door & Linda Chatman Thomsen returning to Davis Polk Wardell Apr 13, 09 after EIB files Emergency Motion in SGI BK after SEC complaint against Intel, R3D, Mar 25, 09 http://www.oid-ido.org/imprimer.php3?id_article=1030

FOR THE ORIGINAL PRESS RELEASE VISIT THE TOTALLY AWESOME FREE PRESS RELEASE @ http://www.free-press-release.com/news-conflicts-force-prosecutor-off-madoff-investigation-see-related-story-trillion-dollar-iviewit-inventor-eliot-bernstein-files-conflicts-obstruction-1255371427.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Senator John L. Sampson NY Senate Judiciary Hearing ~ Testimony of Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Re Trillion Dollar Fed Suit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Intel, SGI, Lockheed & more

October 8th, 2009

Iviewit Press Release…Read All About It…Full Release Below or @ the totally awesome Free Press Release @ http://www.free-press-release.com/news-senator-john-l-sampson-ny-senate-judiciary-comm-hearing-testimony-of-iviewit-inventor-eliot-bernstein-re-trillion-dollar-fed-suit-naming-proskauer-1254966944.html

I eyeball31VIEWeyeball31IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

IVIEWIT INVENTOR ELIOT BERNSTEIN SUBMITS TESTIMONY TO NY SENATE JUDICIARY DETAILS WIDESPREAD NY & RELATED CORRUPTION INVOLVING PATENT THEFT, FRAUD ON US PATENT OFFICE, CAR BOMBING, ENRON & MORE

Eliot I. Bernstein, a husband to Candice and father of 3 sons living in Boca Raton, Florida and the original Inventor and Owner of Trillion dollar plus Technologies filed formal written Testimony this week with New York State Senate Judiciary Chair John L. Sampson.  The NYS Senate Judiciary Committee recently held its second public hearing on the NYS Judiciary and Discipline process and problems in the NYS Court system on Sept. 24, 2009 in Manhattan.  Additional hearing dates are expected to be announced soon.

 

Bernstein had previously traveled to Albany, NY on June 8, 2009 on the first date of Hearings before the Committee and was slated to Testify publicly in the late afternoon when the now infamous “Senate Coup” shut down the NYS Senate building including the lights and internet preventing Mr. Bernstein and others from testifying.

 

Bernstein’s Testimony outlines a wide and broad range of corruption, theft of the Trillion dollar technologies, forgery and fraudulent Patents and Intellectual Property filings, Fraud on the US & Foreign Patent Offices, Fraud on the Small Business Administration and other foul play, including the Attempted Murder of the Bernstein Family.  Attempted Murder via a car bombing of their Family Minivan in Boynton Beach, Florida as Mr. Bernstein and his wife were preparing filings in the US Courts.  The car bombing was so strong as to take out 3 cars in the incident with full pictorial evidence available at www.iviewit.tv. 

 

The saga now commonly known as “Patentgate” has tentacles to involvement by the controversial Florida State Supreme Court Judge Jorge LaBarga involved in the Bush 2000 Florida Election debacle, as well as ties to the collapse of Enron and Arthur Andersen thru Enron Broadband and Blockbuster as well as tentacles to public office and professional corruption involving the Florida, Virginia & New York State Courts and Attorney regulatory processes.  The seed investment of the Iviewit companies coming from founder of Blockbuster, Waste Management and former Miami Dolphins owner Wayne Huizenga and his son.

 

Several law firms are alleged to be at the center of the Thefts and wrongdoing including the Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and Foley & Lardner LLP and others. Proskauer has had several high profile issues as of late especially due to a Worldwide Lawsuit over the involvement of the Firm and Partner Thomas Sjoblom in the $8 Billion Sir Allen Stanford Financial Ponzi scheme.  Public reports have shown that Proskauer apparently had the most clients in the $65 Billion Madoff Ponzi scheme as well.  Other links place Proskauer referred former patent counsel to Iviewit moving to convicted felon Marc S. Dreier and more.

 

The Bernstein Technologies founded companies known as “Iviewit” and the technologies are backbone to digital video and imaging content creation and distribution, used across all Internet providers hosting video (YouTube, Google, etc.), all digital television providers and paved the way for cell phone video and video conferencing markets.  The technologies also used for a host of Defense applications including space and flight simulators, guidance systems and more. 

 

Bernstein has formally Petitioned President Barack Obama, White House Counsel and United States Attorney General Eric Holder in the matters for a variety of reasons, including the broad and fundamental economic implications from the case.  Bernstein and Iviewit have alleged hosts of companies including Fortune 1000 companies are infringing on the Bernstein technologies and Holder and others have been petitioned additionally regarding crimes committed directly against US and Foreign Government Agencies.  The US Patent Office Commissioner has suspended the Intellectual Properties during investigation and Harry I. Moatz of the US Patent Office has confirmed working with Federal Agents regarding the allegations.

 

The Technologies used and tested at the Real3d Inc Labs in Orlando, Florida located on property owned by major Defense firm Lockheed Martin and engineers from Real3d Inc described the technologies as priceless. Real3d at the time was a consortium owned by Lockheed Martin ( Lockheed ), the Intel Corporation ( Intel ) and Silicon Graphics Inc. ( SGI )  Real3d Inc traces its history in graphics back to the Apollo Lunar Space program and was Iviewit’s first strategic partner.  Minority interest owner (20%) Intel acquired Real3d from Lockheed and SGI.

 

Bernstein has a multi-party federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO, anti-trust and other charges involving theft and fraud and US SDNY Judge Shira Scheindlin who also called the Bernstein case about “Murder” and “Attempted Murder” marked the case legally “related” to the Federal WHISTLEBLOWER case of Christine Anderson.  Anderson has exposed a wide range of public corruption issues at the Manhattan based First Department Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court where Wall Street attorneys and others are regulated.  For more information, see Full link to the Bernstein Testimony before the NYS Senate Judiciary and other links below.

 

In other related news, Bernstein recently filed an application in the Southern District of New York Federal Bankruptcy Court of Martin Glenn seeking the disqualification of Judge Glenn and demanding investigation for conflicts and other charges.  Charges came after Bankruptcy Judge Glenn refused to address and further covered up professional conflicts of interest in the SDNY Bankruptcy of Debtor SGI.  SGI was part of Real3d who was under Non Disclosure Agreement ( NDA ) and Licensing Agreements for the Bernstein Technologies.  Remarkably. SGI filed its second Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection petition just 6 days after Bernstein had officially notified SGI of its involvement in a possible Trillion Dollar accounting fraud with Intel and Lockheed after Bernstein filed a formal SEC Complaint against the Intel Corporation seeking examination of all the sales transactions with the Real3d Inc company. For related links to the Bankruptcy and SEC filings see below.

 

 

LINKS:

 

Testimony of Eliot I. Bernstein to the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee Sept. 2009 Testimony by Bernstein Begins at 4.02.08 in this video @ 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-4733-9ae52aac6d59f1ac_8530.jpg&playeraspectwidth=4&playeraspectheight=3

 

Eliot Bernstein Letter to Senator Sampson with Prepared Written Statement for NYS Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings @

http://www.iviewit.tv/20091005%20NY%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Prepared%20Statement.doc 

 

June 08, 2009 Judiciary Committee Hearing with Whistleblower Anderson’s Riveting Testimony Second Part 1 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded

 

INDEX OF SPEAKERS

6:45 Martin Gold, Alan Friedberg (DDC)

32:00 Christine Anderson (whistleblower)

49:00 Kevin Mckeowen (victim of DDC)

1:4:00 Tembeckjian Klonic (CJC)

1:21:00 Judge Hart (target of (CJC)

1:39:00 Pamela Carvel (victim of DDC)

150:00 Paul Altman (victim of DDC)

2:03:00 Luisa Esposito (victim of DDC)

2:12::00 Will Galison (victim of DDC)

2:26 Elanor Capagrossa (target of DDC)

2:41 Bob Ostertag (Former pres. NYBA)

2:53 John Aretakis (target of DDC)

Eliot I. Bernstein ~ Cancelled due to Senate Coup in Albany NY

Part 2 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28afajRkDwY&feature=player_embedded

 

Press Release Calling for Disqualification and Investigation of SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn September 2009 @ http://www.free-press-release.com/news-manhattan-fed-bankruptcy-judge-martin-glenn-under-fire-from-trillion-dollar-iviewit-inventor-eliot-bernstein-as-related-federal-whistleblower-christi-1253613005.html

 

Real3d Inc. company information from Wikipedia @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real3D

 

Formal complaint to SEC regarding Intel Corporation, Transactions with SGI Inc, Lockheed Martin etc re: Real3d Inc and other March 25, 2009 @  http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20FINAL%20Intel%20SEC%20Complaint%20SIGNED2073.pdf

 

Formal Petiton to President Barack Obama, White House Counsel’s Office, US Attorney General Eric Holder Feb. 13th 2009 @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

 

Twelve Count, Twelve Trillion Dollar Multi-Party Amended Complaint SDNY alleging RICO, Anti-trust, theft, fraud and more relating to Technologies and Intellectual properties @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

 

Motion to Compel US Second Circuit Court of Appeals & Citizens Arrest of Judges and More @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf

 

Press Release IVIEWIT TRILLION $$ FED SUIT DEFENDANT PROSKAUER ROSE SUED IN GLOBAL CLASS ACTION RE STANFORD PONZI @

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-iviewit-trillion-fed-suit-defendant-proskauer-rose-sued-in-global-class-action-re-stanford-ponzi-1252249099.html

 

Press Release NY TIMES REPORTS 80M SUIT CLAIMING WHITEWASHING IVIEWIT COMPLAINTS V. PROSKAUER & NY SUPREME COURT @ http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200711/1195860789.html

 

More information @ http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com Expose Corrupt Courts

 

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/05/holocaust-survivor-leads-charge-in.html

 

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/12/proskauer-rose-house-of-cards-crumbling.html

 

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/12/ethics-scandal-hearing-greeted-with-15.html

 

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/04/ny-ethics-scandal-tied-to-international.html 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Iviewit Press Releases | No Comments »

Prepared Statement of Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit to New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Regarding Trillion Dollar Iviewit Federal Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Larnder, IBM, Intel, SGI, Lockheed and More

October 7th, 2009

 

 

 Iviewit Technologies, Inc. Logo

  I-VIEW-IT  HOLDINGS, INC.

I-VIEW-IT  TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

Eliot I. Bernstein

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

Monday, October 05, 2009

 

The Honorable Senator John L. Sampson
Chairman of the New York State Standing Committee On The Judiciary
New York State Senate
NYS Senate Judiciary Committee

District Office
1222 96th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11236
Tel:   (718) 649-7653
Fax:  (718) 649-7661

Albany Office
409 Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Tel:   (518) 455-2788
Fax:  (518) 426-6806

Re:      Submission of Prepared Statement Regarding Testimony of Eliot I. Bernstein at September 24, 2009 Public Hearing, For Inclusion in The Public Record for the Hearings Regarding the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Dear Honorable Senator John L. Sampson,

Thank you for your courage in conducting the first Hearing on June 08, 2009 and the second Hearing of the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2009 regarding the NY Judicial and Attorney Disciplinary processes.

Enclosed please find a Written copy of the Prepared Statement and Exhibits that accompanies my testimony for the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee for inclusion in the public records of the hearings.  As you may recall, I flew to Albany on June 8, 2009 from Boca Raton, Florida to provide testimony yet denied the opportunity to testify that day because of the now infamous Senate Coup in Albany that took place in the Capital Building, shutting down the hearings immediately prior to my testifying.  Again, on September 24, 2009, I appeared at the second hearing in Manhattan at 250 Broadway in New York and testified but was unable to finish my testimony before the Committee, yet I am most thankful for even the limited time I had, as already it yielded the Committees interest and intervention in certain matters.  As you may recall, interruptions occurred through parts of my Testimony while you discussed issues with William Galison who was videotaping Mr. Alan Friedberg, current head of the First Department Appellate Discipline Committee and Mr. Alan Tembeckjian, Chief Counsel of the current NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct.  Several minutes of my testimony interrupted as Friedberg and Tembeckjian became very uncomfortable with videotaping at a Public Hearing, which I found highly unusual for Public Officials.

In the event that a third hearing is scheduled, if the Committee would be so kind and has available time resources, as I know many victims lined the room hoping to testify at the last hearing, I request additional time for further testimony to be publically entered into the record.  I hereby request that my Prepared Statement be accepted for the Record of these Judiciary Hearings before the NY State Senate, as I was promised by both Timothy Spotts and Lisa Lashley that the Prepared Statement and all exhibits would be submitted to the entire Committee and for inclusion into the record.  I therefore respectfully request an Acknowledgement notice from your Office as current Chair of the Committee that this letter and the attached Prepared Statement were docketed officially in the record.

As captured in the live testimony provided on September 24, 2009 @

 

[ Judiciary Committee Hearing Linkage my Testimony Begins at 4.02.08 in this video @ 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-4733-9ae52aac6d59f1ac_8530.jpg&playeraspectwidth=4&playeraspectheight=3   

&
First Hearing June 08, 2009 Judiciary Committee Hearing with Anderson Testifying Second @ Part 1 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded

I asked the Committee to determine the status and location of my complaints against Alan Friedberg, current Chief Counsel of the First Department Appellate Division Discipline Committee and Roy L. Reardon Partner at Simpson Thacher appointed to a three-year term as Chairman of the Appellate Division, First Department Disciplinary Committee, the complaints now falling far outside the procedural response time.  May the Committee also take formal notice that the complaints against Friedberg and Reardon arose from their handling complaints filed against Lawyers in Conflict in my Federal Lawsuit and where the First Department and First Department Disciplinary Committee are both Defendants in the same Lawsuit, again conflict beyond belief. 

Arrangements were made with Monica Connell of the New York Attorney General’s Office who is representing the First Department Defendants, to have the complaints moved prior to any action by the First Department, to a Non-Conflicted Third Party prior to even reviewing them.  Instead, the First Department ignored the requests and decision of their representative counsel, the NYAG and moved to Dismiss the Complaints against other Defendants in the Lawsuit that they are Defendants in as well.  Defendants, dismissing complaints against other Defendants, complaints directly related to the Lawsuit they are Defendants in, creating overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety through violations of Title 18 and State Obstruction Laws, Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes and Violations of the Rules and Regulation of the First Department Disciplinary itself.

The Dismissals instantly appealed, yet again, we have still heard nothing back from the First Department or their counsel the NYAG and certain procedural rules appear broken.  At the same time the appeal was timely filed, formal written complaints were lodged against Friedberg and Reardon, again requesting, no demanding, the complaints be moved to a Non-Conflicted third party by the NYAG from the First Department.  Complications also arise since the NYAG is also a Defendant in the Lawsuit and thus calls then were made to the NYAG’s office whereby Steven M. Cohen

[http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090613%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20signed%20low.pdf and http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090618%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20Re%20Lamont%20Signed.pdf ],

Andrew Cuomo’s Chief of Staff, claimed that neither he nor Andrew Cuomo was aware of the situation unfolding and that he would personally look into the matters. The original call to the NYAG’s office prior to Cohen’s involvement was made to ascertain whom to file Title 18 Obstruction charges with against the NYAG and First Department.  I await the formal response from the NYAG and again urge this Committee to intercede and find out exactly who will be investigating the matters and complaints in a situation where it appears almost everyone involved or who is supposed to be protecting citizen’s rights have Conflicts of Interest in New York concerning these matters.

It should be noted that similar to the Whistleblower Anderson, central to this Committees investigation, the NYAG is representing the State Defendants against the Plaintiff, not vice versa.  Especially twisted in this scenario is there is a Whistleblower exposing Public Office Corruption, which should legally obligate the NYAG to represent the Whistleblower through its Public Integrity Division responsible for investigating corruption by Public Officials, therefore the NYAG should be representing the Whistleblower, the Legally “Related” Lawsuits and the Public Interest and not the accused Public Officials.  Yet we find the NYAG representing the accused Public Officials they should be investigating in the Anderson Whistleblower lawsuit and the lawsuits Legally “Related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, despite the fact that Scheindlin has referred the related cases to the NYAG.  This leaves the question of just who is representing the People and are the People paying for the defenses of the accused Public Officials on the Public Dime and finally does this not put the NYAG in a Conflict of Interest that acts to Obstruct Justice by preventing Prosecution.

The NYAG’s Conflict of Interest is more insipid, as it also acts to Obstruct Justice as the conflicted representation makes it impossible for the NYAG to investigate and prosecute those they are representing, representing on STATE TAXPAYERS money. Absolutely obscene and as the citizens of New York discover that the NYAG is representing, not prosecuting Public Officials in allegations of Public Office Crimes by Whistleblowers, which they are charged with investigating, the Public will Lose Faith in the Public Offices designed to protect them.  It will make them sick when they find that this illegal representation is on Public Finances and there will be hell to pay for those involved who have created this nifty shield from prosecution.  I remind this Committee of New York Penal Code §195.00 that states:

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

As the video tapes of the hearings reveal, upon request for the Committee intervention, you Senator Sampson asked Mr. Friedberg to look into where the missing complaints were and inform the Committee of the Status and Mr. Friedberg claimed he would look into them.  Not that his representative counsel in my Lawsuit against the First Department would look into them but that he personally would look into them, which again would violate entirely rules regarding Conflicts, yet it was very revealing of how things operate now at the First Department. Respectfully, I await the Committee’s determination as to the location and status of these Complaints and what non conflicted third party the complaints should transfer too.  The complaints against Reardon and Friedberg and the others as follows:

[February 09, 2009 New York State Office of Attorney General Public Integrity Complaint RE:      

I.   Roy L. Reardon letter dated January 27, 2009

II. Alan W. Friedberg letter dated January 12, 2009 

III. Complaints

A. “New Complaints”

1. Roy L. Reardon, Esq. – Waiting Docket #

2. Alan W. Friedberg, Esq. – Waiting Docket #

B. “2008 Complaints” Matters of Attorney Complaints Docket #2008-0756, appears to attempt to merge multiple complaints into one, waiting formal individual docket #’s from NYAG.

3. Proskauer Rose, LLP – First Dep. Failed to formally docket

4. Foley & Lardner - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

            5. Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

            6. Joanna F. Smith, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

            7. Todd C. Norbitz, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

8. Anne B. Sekel, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

C. “Old Complaints” (Transferred by Unpublished Orders M3198 - Steven C. Krane / M2820 Kenneth Rubenstein and M3212 Raymond A. Joao on Unanimous Consent of First Dept Justices for Conflict of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety to Second Department.  Second Department failed to conduct formal investigations ordered by First Dept.)

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

              14. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20NYAG%20PUBLIC%20INTEGRITY%20COMPLAINT%20SIGNED.pdf

and

March 09, 2009 Plaintiff’s First Dept DDC Complaints Proskauer and Foley ~ See pages 24-27 @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Opposition%20to%20Proskauer%20letter%20as%20counsel.pdf ]

As a final matter, I look forward to timely receiving a signed copy of my Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form, attached to the Prepared Statement from yourself and the other members of the Committee or any other person this Committee may join to investigate the matters further.  I also respectfully request that all information and testimony I have rendered the Committee be turned over to the Task Force the Committee is starting as stated in the hearings for immediate review and investigation.

I again thank you for your courageous efforts in the face of Corruption and more respect you for your upfront disclosure in the hearing that you previously worked for the main accused in my allegations, the Proskauer Rose law firm.   

Respectfully Yours,

eliot-sig

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

Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s) – Prepared Statement for Inclusion Into Judiciary Committee Hearing Public Record

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

cmb/eib

ec & cc ~ Electronic and Carbon Copy(ies)

The Honorable Barack Hussein Obama II, President of the United States

New York Senate Judiciary Committee Members

The Honorable John Conyers Jr. - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator, Senate Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General ~ US Department of Justice

The Honorable Elena Kagan, Solicitor General ~ US Department of Justice

The Honorable Glenn Fine, Inspector 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 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

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

Iviewit Shareholders, Investors and Patent Interest Holders

Select Press 1897 Final

——

NY Senate Judiciary Committee Prepared Statement Of Inventor Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Iviewit Technologies, Inc.

 

Introduction:

 

Hello and let me thank all of you for the opportunity to tell my most compelling story that involves a widespread corruption in the New York Courts and New York investigatory bodies that have utterly failed in their civic duties to protect my rights and in fact have become the actual Nemesis’ that block my rights.  My name is Eliot I. Bernstein and I reside in Boca Raton Florida and flew here to NY for the first hearings on June 8, 2009, and was prepared to address the Committee until the sudden Coup cancelled the remainder of the calendar prior to me speaking.  I have traveled here while under a medical treatment program to tell you about the saga of my companies I-View-It in what has earned the moniker “PatentGate” and its relation to the Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson involving the Courts of New York and more. I remind all of you of the Conflict of Interest disclosure forms I have sent to this Committee and request that any/all conflicts be appropriately disclosed during these hearings or immediately hereafter.

I am 12 years husband to my lovely wife Candice, father of 3 beautiful sons, Joshua Ennio Zander, Jacob Noah Archie & Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo and an Inventor of the “Iviewit” Technologies involving video and image compression commonly referred to as mathematical scaling formulas, now used on virtually all digital imaging and video devices.  Examples of the uses:

  • The Hubble Space Telescope ( providing views into the universe and time like never before seen, my fav!!! ),
  • All Internet Service providers hosting video,
  • All computers and televisions playing video, DVD’s HDDVD’s, etc.
  • All graphics chips
  • All Digital Television & Cable Service Providers,
  • Digital Video Hardware – Televisions, camera’s, etc.
  • Mass of Defense Applications such as space and flight simulators, missile and drone guidance systems, etc.
  • Medical Imaging devices,
  • GPS Mapping Programs, such as Google used for zooming from space to locations on earth with crystal clarity
  • YouTube, Hulu, etc.
  • Microsoft Media, Real Video, QuickTime Video

 

My technologies are the subject of a Multi-Count (12) Multi-Trillion Dollar, Yes, Twelve Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit

[May 09, 2008 Iviewit Amended Complaint @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf ]