Posts Tagged ‘lockheed’

The Rise & Fall of Intel Corporation ( NASDAQ: INTC ). Competition Case Update 2nd Notice of Intel Network SEC Violations Ref# HO-1248999. Similar allegations as Ivieiwt inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Trillion Dollar Lawsuit, Intel named as key Defendant. Complaints filed with DOJ Eric Holder, VP Joe Biden, SEC Mary Shapiro implicating Intel in RICO with Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, AOL, Inc. ( NYSE:AOL ) & more. Read all about it @ www.iviewit.tv

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Blog Post by Real True and Honest Investigative Reporter/Blogger/Whistleblower & Revealer of Light Crystal C. Cox @

http://www.ceopaulotellini.com/2010/09/statement-from-mike-bruzzone-ftc-ta.html


Proof Of Intel Cartel - RICO Proof -

Full Screen Link

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/document-preview.aspx?doc_id=51737284

Intel FTC - Intel FTC 9341 - Intel Corp. Fraud

Correspondence with D. Bruce Sewell, Barrett and Paul Otellini - They KNEW

 

Blog Owned By Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower as Part of Exposing to You the Story on the Iviewit Stolen Patent and Defense of ALL who have been Beaten down and Taken Advantage of By Billion Dollar Tech Companies Above the Law.

 

 

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Notifies Governor Charlie Crist of Florida Corruption for 19th Florida Grand Jury at Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum re The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Public Office Corruptions, including Judge Jorge Labarga, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner and more. Read All About It!

Saturday, September 4th, 2010

http://www.foley-lardner.com/2010/09/eliot-bernstein-iviewit-technologies.html by Angel of Light & Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

Friday, September 3, 2010

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Notifies Governor Charlie Crist of Florida Corruption at Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum

Eliot Bernstein Notifies Florida Governor of Massive Florida Corruption at the Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

” Friday, September 03, 2010

Hon. Governor Charlie Crist
Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida

Dear Honorable Governor Charlie Crist,

Per the Attorney General of the Great State of Florida, I write to you for inclusion into the ongoing Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury, the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit companies claims of criminal RICO and ANTITRUST activities by certain members of the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Bar, the Boca Raton P.D., the law firms Proskauer Rose LLP, Foley & Lardner LLP and more.

The extent of these claims of Public Office Corruption reach the highest levels of Florida government and thus are germane to the Grand Jury’s request for information and stated purpose, “The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline for anyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involving public corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury should investigate regarding public corruption.

Below is a communication from Attorney General McCollum in response to my request to his offices for inclusion, whereby he urges me to contact and join your offices of these most serious allegations as well.

I am contacting your offices again, as I have contacted them in the past regarding these matters and am asking that your offices take all actions necessary to have these allegations investigated by the Florida Grand Jury your office has convened, as well as, any other criminal actions you may deem appropriate in investigating these matters and notifying the proper authorities of the allegations alleged herein and in the URL links provided herein.

I am happy to provide additional information or testimony relating to the matters to any investigators you deem appropriate or before the Grand Jury.

Many of these matters have crossed state lines through the law firms accused and in New York, a NY Supreme Court Whistleblower Christine Anderson, Esq. has identified a Racketeering type organization within not only the NY Courts and NY Disciplinary Agencies but the NY prosecutorial offices, including the US Attorney, the NY Attorney General Cuomo’s offices and the NY District Attorneys Office.

The allegations rise to senior members of these public offices acting in conspiracy to deprive due process to citizens’ complaints against them and in fact, a “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein of the NY Supreme Court was allegedly according to Anderson Whitewashing attorney complaints for these prosecutors. In addition, Anderson claims “favored lawyers and law firms” had their complaints cleaned as well.

The Anderson case now also involves Federal Obstruction of Justice in a federal Lawsuit, with death threats on Federal Witnesses on their way to testify in Federal Court. Extortion of state employees is also evidenced in Anderson, replete with physical assaults on the 60 yr. female Anderson, to either aid and abet or else by Senior New York Supreme Court Officials.

My Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit filed alongside and in support of Anderson’s Historic and Heroic Whistleblower claims, was legally “related” to the Anderson Whistleblower lawsuit by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin.

Many of the defendants in my Fed RICO and ANTITRUST are located here in Florida, in fact all of my claims began in Florida, as that is where my companies and myself were located at the time the criminal activities were first discovered.

Proskauer partners were ordered for Investigation for Conflicts of Interest and Violations of Public office by the New York Supreme Court, in a unanimous consent of five justices of that court but those investigations are now under investigation for their failure to investigate.

The allegations in NY are almost identical to those I filed in Florida just different players from the same firms often having infiltrated and violated public offices to deny due process to my complaints in violation of law and attorney and judicial conduct codes.

All of my complaints in Florida in the courts and to all state agencies are herein officially requested to be re-opened in light of the revelations of new and damning information revealed in Anderson and new evidence against certain defendants in my lawsuit from Florida.

New evidence includes Defendant Proskauer Rose LLP and Partner Thomas Sjoblom’s involvement in the ExSir Robert Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme, Sjoblom found aiding and abetting Stanford Employees in a Miami Airport Hanger teaching them how to lie to SEC and FBI investigators.

As you know, Proskauer has been sued in a Global Class Action for the entire damages of Stanford, approximately 7 Billion US Dollars. Another thread to Florida is another Defendant in my Fed RICO, now infamous Ponzi schemer, Marc S. Dreier, Esq., who has been sentenced to 20 years for his Ponzi scheme.

Greenberg Traurig law firm, who represents the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court in my Fed RICO, acting in conflict as Greenberg Traurig was also former Patent Counsel for my companies and myself, where Greenberg has recently been alleged running a large Ponzi scheme in Florida, more information below. A link too many of the Florida specific crimes can be found at
http://iviewit.tv/supreme%20court/index.htm

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm

Complaints filed in Florida with the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court are requested to be re-opened by your offices with oversight by your offices to mitigate any further conflicts of interest and violations of Public Offices and law.

Complaints filed with the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court against, Florida Bar employees, Florida Supreme Court Public Officials, Proskauer Partners Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq. who was convicted of Felony DUI with Injury in Florida and Matthew Triggs who violated Florida Bar Rules in handling Complaints in multiple conflicts and violation of public office of the Florida Bar, are also being requested herein to have formal investigations into the matters reheard entirely based on a plethora of new information and evidence against the defendants in those matters and again instituted with oversight of your offices.

Similarly, we are requesting that your offices investigate the Florida Civil Court Case Civil Case No. 502001CA004671XXCDAB with new evidence showing a complete fraud on the court was orchestrated by Proskauer and Judge Jorge Labarga of the Florida Supreme Court, prior to your appointment of Labarga to the Florida Supreme Court.

I also note that members of your inner staff are formerly with Defendant Foley & Lardner, who acted as Solicitor General to the Florida Supreme Court while my complaints were being reviewed by that Court.

I also note that Justice Jorge Labarga and several of the Florida Supreme Court Justice and Court Officials are Defendants in my Trillion Dollar Fed RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit. I also note that several members or former members of the Florida Bar are Defendants in my Trillion Dollar Fed RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.

Therefore, I request further that your offices in handling these matters proceed with extreme caution in ferreting out ALL Conflicts of Interest prior to involvement by any party, to preclude further possible charges against members of your office or any other party your offices join into these matters.

I have attached a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form for all parties, including yourself, to sign and return to my office at 2753 NW 34th St. Boca Raton, FL 33434, prior to ANY Actions you take in even considering the matter.

As a mass of Conflicts of Interest have been discovered in these matters already and the Whistleblower further identifying a criminal conspiracy within state agencies, this Conflict form is essential to ensuring fair and impartial due process of law by non conflicted parties. Any conflicts identified may be considered based on full disclosure and agreement by ALL parties involved or new non conflicted parties must be retained prior to disclosure of even the most basic information.

As these matters in New York and Florida are against some of the highest ranking officials in the states, I know that in New York Anderson and now other related cases and witnesses who testified to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee are seeking various forms of witness protection, I similarly would like to know what options for this type of protection are available to those who come forward in Florida.

As a car bombing victim of the RICO Criminal Enterprise, described in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit I feel that certain protections should already have been availed, in fact, I petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for such once already and this Motion is located at the URL

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004_10_07_Supreme_Court_Florida_Motion_Final_Cert_Signed.pdf
as well as, repeated requests since it was determined by Florida Fire Investigator Rick Lee that accelerants’ were the cause of the explosion that blew up three cars next to it, in Boynton Beach Florida. Despite repeated notice to Florida Law Enforcement, as you can see from the previous link they too were involved in the second act that protection from the court was requested for and therefore have never investigated these matters through public office corruption after public office corruption after public office corruption as defined herein and in the attached URL’s.

Please make all exhibits and links fully incorporated by reference herein into this letter for formal docketing in the Florida Grand Jury Request of Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit Companies, each URL may have several URL’s, also hereby incorporated entirely by reference herein and for further use by the Grand Jury.

As Whistleblower Anderson in a sworn statement has claimed that she witnessed document destruction of investigatory files first hand (Anderson’s Statement to the New York Judiciary Committee attached below), please print each and every url in entirety for inclusion into this document and due to the fact that these matters pertain to US Patent Rights of an inventor, please retain these files and information for a period of no less than 20 yrs.

There are over a thousand documents at the URL http://www.iviewit.tv/ on the homepage under the Evidence Section on the homepage for your review and for docketing with the complaints and for review by investigators or Grand Jurors.

Despite whether the Florida Grand Jury investigates these most serious allegations of corruption at the highest levels of Florida Government, let this letter also serve as a formal request that your offices begin all necessary notices and/or investigations and notify all investigatory bodies necessary to investigate all those persons named in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit from Florida and notify them of the new evidence and requests for an entire review of all prior actions by any Florida Agency listed herein or in the URL’s embedded herein.

Please formally notify the following offices of this submission, including but not limited to, the Florida Inspector General (copied herein), the Florida US Attorney, the necessary Florida District Attorneys and the Florida Attorney General of the allegations and information contained herein, please have all parties sign prior to acceptance of ANY materials a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form, again prior to ANY actions or decisions being rendered or transfer of any confidential information.

Please take this communication as both a request to join the 19th Florida Grand Jury and Request for Formal Investigations of all of the following Florida Defendants in my Fed RICO and ANTITRUST by the Florida Governor and Florida Attorney General’s offices, please docket a separate complaint for each Florida organization and individual listed below;

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, and, all of its Partners,

Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

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

ALBERT T. GORTZ, in his professional
and individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER PRUZASKI, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MARA LERNER ROBBINS, in her professional
and individual capacities,AMENDED

DONALD “ROCKY” THOMPSON, in his COMPLAINT
professional and individual capacities,

GAYLE COLEMAN, in her professional
and individual capacities,

DAVID GEORGE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

GEORGE A. PINCUS, in his professional
and individual capacities,

GREGG REED, in his professional
and individual capacities,

LEON GOLD, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MARCY HAHN-SAPERSTEIN, in her professional
and individual capacities,

KEVIN J. HEALY, in his professional
and individual capacities,

STUART KAPP, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RONALD F. STORETTE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

CHRIS WOLF, in his professional
and individual capacities,

JILL ZAMMAS, in her professional
and individual capacities,

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, and, all of its Partners,
Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

MICHAEL C. GREBE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

WILLIAM J. DICK, in his professional
and individual capacities,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR FLORIDA,

HON. JORGE LABARGA in his official and individual capacities,

THE FLORIDA BAR,

JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS in his official and individual capacities,

KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON in her official
and individual capacities,

LORRAINE CHRISTINE HOFFMAN in her
official and individual capacities,

ERIC TURNER in his official and individual
capacities,

KENNETH MARVIN in his official and individual
capacities,

JOY A. BARTMON in her official and individual
capacities,

JERALD BEER in his official and individual
capacities,BROAD & CASSEL, and, all of its Partners,

Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

JAMES J. WHEELER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,

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

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

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

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

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

THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual
capacities,

DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and
individual capacities,

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA,

CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA.

BOCA RATON Police Department

ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and
individual capacities,

ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual
capacities,

CROSSBOW VENTURES, INC.,

ALPINE VENTURE CAPITAL PARTNERS LP,

STEPHEN J. WARNER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RENE P. EICHENBERGER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

H. HICKMAN “HANK” POWELL, in his
professional and individual capacities,

MAURICE BUCHSBAUM, in his professional
and individual capacities,

ERIC CHEN, in his professional
and individual capacities,

AVI HERSH, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MATTHEW SHAW, in his professional
and individual capacities,

BRUCE W. SHEWMAKER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RAVI M. UGALE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.,

ROYAL O’BRIEN, in his professional
and individual capacities,

HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED,

WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional
and individual capacities,

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

HOUSTON & SHAHADY, P.A., and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

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

FURR & COHEN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

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

MOSKOWITZ, MANDELL, SALIM & SIMOWITZ, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

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

SACHS SAX & KLEIN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

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

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

SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY LLP, and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

RICHARD SCHIFFRIN, in his professional and individual capacities,

ANDREW BARROWAY, in his professional and individual capacities,

KRISHNA NARINE, in his professional and individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

ALAN M. WEISBERG, in his professional and individual capacities,

ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities, ”

******

Above Letter From Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Technologies Founder and Main Inventor to Florida’s Governor Charlie Crist … AGAIN… What will Governor Charlie Crist of Florida do with this Knowing of Blatant and Widespread Corruption This Time ??

I will Let You Know.

In My Opinion, if Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and if Governor Charlie Crist IGNORES this information, Well Time for a RICO Lawsuit, a Whistleblower Lawsuit AGAINST the STATE of FLORIDA for aiding and abetting Massive Shareholder Fraud, Major Crime and Corruption, Government Corruption and for Hiding Secrets that will Cost Taxpayers - Investors - Shareholders BILLIONS of Dollars.

More on the Massive Corruption in Florida
www.FloridaGrandJury.com

Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

got a Tip on Corruption in Florida,
or on Bill McCollum Florida Attorney General,
Or On Governor Charlie Crist ??
eMail me
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

——————————————————

Check out Eliot Bernstein on Dick Woelfle’s We The People TV - Part 1 - The Inventions now playing @

http://wethepeopletv.com

Additional Info Attached to Letter

—–Original Message—–
From: AG [mailto:AG@MyFloridaLegal.com]
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 6:01 PM
To: iviewit@iviewit.tv
Subject: From Attorney General Bill McCollum

 

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum received your email regarding the Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court.  Attorney General McCollum asked that I respond on his behalf.

 

Attorney General McCollum issued the following statement on the Florida Supreme Court’s order to convene a statewide grand jury on public corruption:

 

http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/A26DE7C27763DB94852576BD005BB1E7

 

The Statewide Prosecutor will serve, by law, as the statewide grand jury’s counsel.  As mentioned in the above statement, our Statewide Prosecutor will work with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and Florida’s state attorneys to identify investigations and cases to bring before the statewide grand jury.  I am forwarding your correspondence to the Statewide Prosecution Office for review.  However, due to the confidential nature of investigations, the Statewide Prosecution Office is not at liberty to comment further.  We will keep your concerns under advisement.

 

If you have not already done so, I also encourage you to convey your concerns to Governor Charlie Crist’s Office at:

 

 Office of the Governor

 The Capitol

 Tallahassee, Florida  32399-0001

 Telephone:  (850) 488-4441

 Website: http://www.flgov.com

 

You should consult your private attorney for any legal advice you may need.  By law our office cannot give legal advice, statutory interpretations, or legal opinions to private individuals or businesses.

 

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review your concerns.

 

 Sincerely,

 Samantha Santana

 Office of Citizen Services

 

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS E-MAIL. THIS ADDRESS IS FOR PROCESSING ONLY.

 

To contact this office please visit the Attorney General’s website at www.myfloridalegal.com and complete the on-line contact form.  Again, thank you for contacting the Office of the Florida Attorney General.

 ________________________________________________________________________

 

 INTERNET MESSAGE RECEIVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE ON 08/21/2010

 

 Eliot Bernstein

 2753 nw 34th st

 Boca Raton, FL 33434

 Email: iviewit@iviewit.tv

 

 RE: Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig, FL Supreme Court Justices, Florida Bar and more

 

 Subject: Public Corruption Grand Jury

 

I have spoken at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee who is holding hearings on Court Corruption in NY related to the NY Supreme Court Whistleblower case listed below.  My RICO and Antitrust, involving many FL attorneys and Judges is related to the Whistleblower Lawsuit.

 

Florida Supreme Court & Florida Bar sued in Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST LAWSUIT - Radio Interview Inventor Eliot Bernstein on Les Winston’s Disbar the Florida Bar Iviewit Technologies Inventor, Eliot Bernstein, Interviews with Disbar the Florida Bar’s Radio Host Les Winston ~ The Biz 880am regarding Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit against Florida Bar, FL Supreme Court, Justice Jorge Labarga, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig & more.

 

Lawsuit Legally “Related” to NY Supreme Court Whistleblower, Christine C. Anderson who reveals an attorney complaint case fixer “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein at NY Ethics Dept which regulates WallStreet.

 

Press Release Distributed @

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-iviewit-inventor-eliot-bernstein-interview-with-disbar-the-florida-bar-les-winston-the-biz-880am-regarding-trillion-dollar-fed-rico-suit-against-flo-1276897073.html

 

or online interactive version @ 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=315

Disbar the Florida Bar Radio Host Les Winston interviews Iviewit Tech Inventor Eliot Bernstein regarding illegal activities at the Florida Supreme Court, Florida Bar & Judge Jorge Labarga.

 

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW @

http://disbarthefloridabar.com/?page_id=96

or

http://www.iviewit.tv/DisbarFloridaBar23.mp3

 

World-renowned Inventor of Digital Video & Imaging Mathematical Scaling Formulas, Eliot Bernstein discusses with radio talk show host Les Winston of Disbar the Florida Bar his Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, naming the Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court & Labarga as Defendants. The suit marked “legally” related by Judge Shira Scheindlin to a NY Whistleblower suit filed by a Supreme Court of NY Staff Attorney, Christine C. Anderson, Esq.  Bernstein’s Amended Complaint @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

 

Anderson alleges the NY Attorney Disciplinary Dept, responsible for the oversight of WallStreet lawyers, has been whitewashing and cleaning disciplinary complaints against attorneys, including US Attorney’s, DA’s & ADA’s.  Anderson named a “Cleaner” from the Ethics Dept of the NY Supreme Court, Naomi Goldstein, supervisor at the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.  No wonder WallStreet melted down & attorney regulators go unpunished for failures after causing massive damage to the American People, only to then leave government positions for cushy law firm partnerships.  Anderson claimed staff attorney, Nicole Corrado Esq., on her way to testify at deposition supporting Anderson’s suit was threatened & intimated by a Sr. Court Official regarding giving testimony, creating Federal Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering & more by Court Officials.

 

Bernstein suing the FL & NY Supreme Courts, State Bars & Disciplinary Agencies, claims conflicted members of the courts, partners from Proskauer Rose LLP law firm, the main conspirator in Bernstein’s case along with law firm Foley & Lardner, illegally handled complaints against partners while holding official title with the courts & disciplinary agencies.  In NY, Bernstein’s

allegations led to unanimous consent of 5 justice of the NY Supreme Court to have former NY State Bar Association President, Steven Krane, a Proskauer partner, ordered for investigation for conflicts & the appearance of impropriety.  Proskauer’s Kenneth Rubenstein, the sole (soulless) patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC, ordered for investigation along with attorney Raymond Joao, who claims to have put 90+ patents into his own name.  Bernstein claims patents filed by Joao were during & after the time Iviewit retained Joao to patent inventions for Bernstein, Joao patented them for himself instead.  After termination as Iviewit counsel, Joao worked for infamous convicted felon Marc S. Dreier, sentenced July 13, 2009, to 20 years in prison.  Thomas Cahill, former

Chief Counsel of the First Dept whom Anderson alleges to be the ringleader at the First Dept, ordered for Special Inquiry.  Cahill’s investigation relates to Krane’s conflicts & Cahill’s role in aiding and abetting the RICO Criminal Enterprise, which Bernstein claims is composed mainly of corrupt mob type law firms.  Anderson under oath in Scheindlin’s US Fed Court stated “Cleaner”

Goldstein was cleaning complaints against “favored law firms and lawyers”.

 

NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo fingered by Anderson & Bernstein for illegal representation of the accused NY State Officials in violation of his public office duties.  Cuomo represents the State Officials both professionally & personally on the broke NY State taxpayers’ dime and Bernstein alleges the NY Attorney General is guilty of Felony Title 18 Obstruction of Justice. Obstruction caused by Cuomo’s conflicting his offices with scienter from investigating the accused State Defendants they represent while simultaneously failing to call in a non-conflicted investigator to investigate the Defendants on behalf of the People of NY. Cuomo is duty bound by Public Officer Law 17(2)(b), which dictates the Attorney General not represent State Defendants when conflict with their offices exist.

 

Yet Cuomo not only represents the State Defendants when conflict exists in both Bernstein and Anderson’s lawsuit but has failed to call in any outside investigator to investigate the State Defendants, his clients, creating a block to prosecution & obstructing justice.  Cuomo, Eliot Spitzer & the NY Attorney General’s office are Defendants in Bernstein’s suit.  The fact they are Defendants makes the continued representation of the State Defendants by the Attorney General’s office bizarre and further illegal.  Bernstein filed criminal complaints with the Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine, the US Attorney General Eric Holder & others regarding the criminal activities of both the NY and FL Officials.

 

Bernstein is the inventor of digital imaging & video technologies that revolutionized the Internet, Television & Digital Imaging, the technologies valued over a Trillion Dollars over the 20 yr patent life.  Bernstein’s patents are currently on Suspension with the US Patent & Trademark Office by the Commissioner of Patents while the Office of Enrollment & Discipline (OED)

Director at the US Patent Office, the Federal Patent Bar, investigates Bernstein’s attorneys for crimes including Fraud Upon the US Patent & Trademark Office.

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/USPTO%20Suspension%20Notices.pdf

 

Bernstein claims Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi claimed to be working with Harry I. Moatz, Director of the OED investigating allegations of crimes against the US & more, Bernstein claims Moatz confirmed collaboration with the FBI. Bernstein calls for the end of attorney self regulation & self discipline by their peers, which has obviously failed, in favor of charging attorneys with criminal acts to criminal prosecutors, warning that victims of attorneys, judges and prosecutors who file with attorney run state attorney regulators are doing themselves a disfavor.  Bernstein claims the attorneys gain advantage through using the state disciplinary agencies, defending themselves in conflict and gaining confidential information against them, while feathering their caps with conflicted decisions on Supreme Court letterhead.  Bernstein along with Anderson, testified before the NY Senate Judiciary Committee in NY @

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded

 

&

 

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

 

Chaired by Hon. Senator John Sampson, the hearings to investigate allegations of corruption in the NY Supreme Court Appellate Divisions.  Hearings remain ongoing & claims made by NY Senators attending to begin a Task Force to investigate victims’ claims of legal process abuse. According to Bernstein, one look only at the recent plethora of criminal activity in the stock market & Ponzi schemes to see that all of these schemes are run by law firms. Bernstein claims the Ponzis are illegal money laundering operations for monies illegally obtained by the law firms Criminal RICO Enterprise activities.  Bernstein points to recent schemes such as Bernard Madoff, former “Sir” Allen Stanford, Marc S. Dreier & Greenberg Traurig’s involvement directly in a Ponzi, as evidence that lawyers are behind the schemes & directly involved in intentionally creating subterfuge of the regulatory agencies that could have prevented these schemes.  Greenberg, recall was central to Abramoff’s fraud and linked to the Stanford Regulatory Failures.

 

Other Defendants, reported to the SEC for alleged Shareholder Frauds relating to the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST include Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL), Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Silicon Graphics, Inc. (delisted NYSE: SGI) & successor Silicon Graphics International (NASDAQ: SGI), Sony Corporation (NYSE/ADR: SNE) , Lockheed Martin

Corporation (NYSE: LMT), Ernst & Young Global Limited @

 

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-eliot-bernstein-of-iviewit-technologies-f iles-sec-fbi-complaint-with-mary-schapiro-others-against-warner-bros-aol-inc-time-warner-intel-sgi-268580941.html

 

 and

 

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=274

 

and

 

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

 

Information regarding these Ponzi schemes and the relation to the Iviewit crimes @

 •         Information regarding Greenberg Traurig’s involvement in a recent Ponzi, “The American Lawyer is reporting today, May 13, 2010, that the law firm of Greenberg Traurig has been sued for its willful participation in and facilitation of what it knew to be an illegal Ponzi scheme” @

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=313

 

Greenberg represents in conflict the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Defendants in Bernstein’s Trillion Dollar RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit, as Greenberg was retained patent counsel by Bernstein & therefore acts wholly in violation of law representing Defendants in the matter.

 

 •         Information re the Bernard Madoff, Stanford & Dreier connections to Defendant Proskauer @

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=307

 

“Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom Further Implicated in the Allen Stanford Ponzi Scheme, Failures of SEC in Stanford Cited Further Supporting Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein’s Federal Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Claims”

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=256

 

“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”

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=254

 

“Florida Bar Under Fire for Lack of Regulation in Robert Allen Stanford & Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, Kenneth Marvin defendant in Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Lawsuit”.  After reading

 the article, one wonders if the Florida Bar reported this liability in the Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Federal Lawsuit to State Auditors? The legally related cases to Anderson are @

 Cases @ New York Second Circuit

 

 1.       08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT

 2.       Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

 3.       Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

 4.       McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

 

Related Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY

 5.       07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT which other cases have been marked legally “related” to by Fed. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin @

 

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

 

 6.       07cv11196 Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.doc

 

 7.       07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al. @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/Esposito/20081228%20Luisa%20Esposito%20Original%20Filing.pdf

 

 8.       08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,

 

 9.       08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al. @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/McKeown/20080307%20Kevin%20McKeown.pdf

 

 10.   08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.,

 11.   08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al. @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/carvel/Carvel%20Filing.pdf

 

 12.   08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al. @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/Weisshaus/20080439%2008cv4053%20Gizella%20Weisshaus.pdf

 

 13.   08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.  @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/McCormick/McCormick%2008cv4438%20SVM%20Cmplnt.pdf

 

 14.   08 cv 6368   John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

 15.  06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al

 

 Other Press Releases

 

NEWS TIP - SEC CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST AOL, TIME WARNER, INTEL, LOCKHEED, SGI FOR SHAREHOLDER FRAUD! IVIEWIT PRESS RELEASE

 

Iviewit Press Release: World Renowned Inventor of Internet Video and Image Scaling Formulae Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC & FBI CRIMINAL Complaint with Mary Schapiro & Others against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner for Patent Theft, a car bombing and more.  Read all about it Online Interactive

Version of Press Release @

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=288

 

Hard Copy of the Release @

 

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-eliot-bernstein-of-iviewit-technologies-files-sec-fbi-complaint-with-mary-schapiro-others-against-warner-bros-aol-inc-time-warner-intel-sgi-268580941.html

 

 (Copy & paste the urls to address bar if not clickable or see attached PDF)

 

Prior Press Release re Supreme Court of New York Whistleblower Lawsuit

 

US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al.  Criminal Allegations Requiring Senator John L. Sampson’s Immediate Attention. In Judge Shira A. Scheindlin’s US Federal Court Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Reveals a “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein, at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department ETHICS Committee allegedly Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA’s and more, a scene more reminiscent of the Gotti Trial on the 26th Floor of the same Federal Courthouse…Inventor Eliot Bernstein’s Family Minivan Bombed in US Patent Office Fraud files Twelve Trillion Dollar RICO Suit legally “related” by Judge Scheindlin to the Whistleblower case (08-4873-cv US Court of Appeals Second Circuit) and US District Court (07cv11196).

 

Where was the Press through all this, the Right Arm of Anarchy, not a single report in over five years regarding a Car Bombing so powerful it blew up three cars next to it in Boynton Beach Florida and not a single press story? Where was the Press for the Whistleblower revelations of Whitewashing of Complaints by the New York Supreme Court for US Attorneys and District Attorneys, a Cleaner at the Ethics Department that regulates Wall Street Lawyers?  Has Investigative Journalism died?  If there are any Journalists or Investigative Reporters left on earth, please feel free to call me, Eliot Bernstein @ 561-245-8588 or write iviewit@iviewit.tv  to break the greatest patent story ever told.

 

For an Interactive version of the attached Adobe PDF Letter to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee and Senator John L. Sampson below with Links to all Exhibits @

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=209

 

From: Eliot Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@hotmail.com]

Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2009 6:43 AM

To: John L. Sampson, Chairman ~ New York Senate Judiciary Committee ( sampson@senate.state.ny.us )

Cc: The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th) - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee ( john.conyers@mail.house.gov ); The Honorable Glenn Fine ~ Inspector General @ United States Department of Justice ( glenn.a.fine@usdoj.gov ); The Honorable Glenn Fine - Inspector General Department of Justice; The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (Business Fax); Jennifer Duck, Chief Counsel ~ Senator Dianne Feinstein ( jennifer_duck@judiciary-dem.senate.gov ); The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General @ US DOJ ( Inspector.general@usdoj.gov ); The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General @ US DOJ ( AskDOJ@usdoj.gov ); The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin @ United States District Court ~ Southern District of New York ( shira_a._scheindlin@NYSD.uscourts.gov ); Elena Kagan, Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law Dean of the Faculty of Law @ Harvard Law School ( ekagan@law.harvard.edu ); Harry I. Moatz ~ Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment & Discipline; David Kappos ~ Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO ( david.kappos@USPTO.gov ); John J. Doll - Commissioner for Patents; David Gouvaia @ Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration ( david.gouvaia@tigta.treas.gov ); Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman @ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov ); Enforcement @ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ( enforcement@sec.gov ); Chris P. Mercer, President ~ Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) ( cpm@carpmaels.com ); Steven Michael Cohen, Counselor and Chief of Staff @ New York Office of the Attorney General ( steven.cohen@oag.state.ny.us ); Timothy Spotts Esq. ~ Counsel @ Senate Standing Committee on the Judiciary ( spotts@senate.state.ny.us ); ‘George Onorato (D-NY 12th) ( onorato@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Senator Ruth E. Hassell-Thompson (D-NY 36th) ( hassellt@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Ruben Diaz (D-NY 32nd) ( diaz@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Jeffrey D. Klein (D-NY 34th) ( jdklein@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘ ( eadams@senate.state.ny.us )’; New York State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. (D) @ 33rd Senate District ( espada@senate.state.ny.us ); ‘Senator Neil D. Breslin (D-NY 46th) ( breslin@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘ ( dilan@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Diane J. Savino (D-NY 23rd) ( savino@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Bill Perkins (D-NY 30th) ( perkins@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘George D. Maziarz (R-NY 62nd) ( maziarz@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Senator John A. DeFrancisco (R-NY 50th) ( jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘David J. Valesky (D-NY 49th) ( volker@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Stephen M. Saland (R-NY 41st) ( saland@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘William J. Larkin, Jr. (R-NY 39th) ( lavalle@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Senator John J. Bonacic (R-NY 42nd) ( bonacic@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘George H. Winner, Jr. (R-NY 53rd) ( winner@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Michael F. Nozzolio (R-NY 54th) (

 nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us )’; ‘Andrew J. Lanza (R-NY 24th) ( lanza@senate.state.ny.us )’; New York State Senator Michael H. Ranzenhofer (R, C, IP) @ 61st Senate District ( ranz@senate.state.ny.us ); Monica Connell, Assistant Attorney General - Division of State Counsel Litigation Bureau ~ State of New York Office of the Attorney General ( monica.connell@oag.state.ny.us ); Rory J. Bellantoni, Partner @ Lovett & Bellantoni, LLP ( info@lovett-bellantoni.com ); Jonathan Lovett, Partner @ Lovett & Bellantoni, LLP ( info@lovett-bellantoni.com ); Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire ( caroline@cprogers.com ); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Michele Marlene Mulrooney Jackoway Esq. ( MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com ); ‘Andy Dietz’; Barry Becker @ Rock-It Cargo USA, Inc. ( barryb@rockitcargo.com ); ‘Terry’; Pat Handley (  svm231@aol.com ); Kevin R. Hall Esq. ( krhall007@aol.com ); ‘ iviewit@gmail.com  ‘; ‘Iviewit Press Release’; TourCandy; ‘Guy Iantoni’; James F. Armstrong ( jim@6armstrongs.com ); Alessandra Dupont ( dupontalessandra1@gmail.com ); Betsy Combier @ Parent  Advocates; ‘Christine C. Anderson ( tallawah@earthlink.net )’; Eleanor Capogrosso Esq. ( eleanor.capogrosso@gmail.com ); Frank Brady @ Expose Corrupt Courts ( CorruptCourts@gmail.com ); ‘Gizella Weisshaus ( GizellaWeisshaus@yahoo.com )’; Jackie Weaver ( jaweaver13@yahoo.com ); Kathryn Grace Jordan @ E.N.D. ~ End Discrimination Now - E.N.D. ( info@enddiscriminationnow.com ); ‘Luisa Esposito’; ‘Pamela Carvel ( estatecrimes@gmail.com )’; Ruth M. Pollack ( ruthmpollack@yahoo.com ); Ruth M. Pollack Esq. ( Ruth@ruthmpollackesq.com ); Scott H. Robb ( shrobb@msn.com ); ‘Tembani Selepi Xaba ( tembani@earthlink.net )’; William Galison ( wgalison@aol.com ) Subject: US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. Criminal Allegations Requiring Your Immediate Attention, Revelation of “Cleaner” at NY First Dept Ethics Committee, Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, District Attorneys and Assistant DA’s and  More.

 ——

I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Surf with Vision

Dear Hon. John L. Sampson, Chairman of the New York Senate Judiciary Committee,

 

Please review the attached PDF Document or

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=209

 

which is a letter regarding the Criminal Allegations levied in the Christine C. Anderson v. New York State et al. case to you and requires actions on the part of the NY Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

Very Truly Yours,

 

Eliot I. Bernstein

Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL

  ——————————–

World Renowned Inventor of Trillion Dollar + Technologies and Car Bombing Victim Eliot Bernstein filed written testimony to supplement his live testimony before a September 24, 2009 NY State Senate Judiciary Committee hearing under Chair, NY Senator John L. Sampson, as announced in the attached press release. An interactive version of the press release is @

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=189

 

and the Formal Written Prepared Statement is @

 

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

 

The technologies are claimed to be used across all Internet and Digital Television providers hosting and distributing video, on Defense applications, Space and Flight simulators, Guidance Systems, Medical Imaging Devices, GPS Mapping like Google Maps, You-Tube, the Hubble Space Telescope and much more.  Major Fortune 1000 and Wall street interests implicated in the case include Intel, SGI, Lockheed, IBM, Comcast, Verizon, AOL TW, Yahoo, Universal Studios, Morgan Stanley, CIBC and much more.  In what is commonly now referred to as “Patentgate”, the attention of Washington, DC and Federal Agencies have been trailing the case for years which involves allegations of Fraud on the US Patent Office and the Attempted Murder of the Inventor’s Family by a Car Bombing in Boynton Beach, Florida strong enough to take out 3 cars, images @ www.iviewit.tv .

 

Bernstein filed a TWELVE COUNT - TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( RICO ) Federal complaint, the case moved its way in to New York when Bernstein’s case was marked legally “related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, to a Whistleblower Lawsuit of Christine Anderson.  Anderson case comes from alleged corruption out of the Supreme Court of NY First Department in Manhattan, which is heading to trial very on October 19, 2009. Major Law Firms and Wall Street interests implicated in the matter include major Defense firm Lockheed Martin, the Intel Corporation, Silicon Graphics Inc and others.

 

Law firms Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner implicated as central players in the theft and fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Offices, which have led to suspension of the intellectual Properties by the US Patent Office Commissioner are under investigation, the patents suspended while federal investigations continue.  Proskauer recently sued for aiding and abetting the Stanford Ponzi scheme and a former SEC Proskauer partner has resigned from the firm, leaving the firm with a global class action for the entire billions stolen by Stanford.  Ties to Madoff and Proskauer also abound and Proskauer is also found representing themselves in court against Bernstein their former client, in MASS conflicts of interest.

 

The press release contains Links to Written Testimony and other releases including a Petition to President Obama and US Attorney General Eric Holder. The full NY senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding the Public Office Corruption in NY can be found @

 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159

 

Bernstein’s Testimony comes at 4.02.08 on the video timeline where he declares that the State Bar Association is a drinking establishment and that it should be “blown up” and “hard pipe hitting investigators who hate lawyers” should be charged with investigating and prosecuting dirty lawyers, judges and politicians, to the jeers of the packed hearing room.

 

Press Release appeared originally at 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

 

 

Amended Complaint – 12 Trillion Dollars @

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

 

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

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

 

More @ Expose Corrupt Courts “BREAKING NEWS IN NEW YORK STATE COURT CORRUPTION TRIAL - Anderson Pulls in Powerhouse Trial Team to Confront Court Ethics Corruption”

 

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/10/anderson-pulls-in-powerhouse-trial-team.html

 

 

 

Christine Anderson Statement

 

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.

 

 

Honorable Governor Crist, in closing, I welcome the opportunity to work with your offices in cleaning the Great State of Florida of one of the largest Public Office Corruption scandals of the century.  Thank you in advance for your cooperation in these matters.  Please formally docket this FORMAL COMPLAINT and REQUEST FOR GRAND JURY participation and confirm such in writing with my offices via US Mail as soon as possible.

 

Yours truly,

 

Eliot Ivan Bernstein, Inventor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I VIEW IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

 

 

Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, 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
http://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

http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com

http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com

http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer
http://www.liberty-candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-For-Greg/111952178833067

http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution)

 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
This message and any attachments are covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. SS 2510-2521.  
This e-mail 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.

 

 

 

 

I-VIEW-IT  HOLDINGS, INC.

I-VIEW-IT  TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

 

Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form

 

Failure to comply may result in criminal and civil charges against you

 

 

Friday, September 03, 2010

 

Please accept and return signed the following Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form (COI) before continuing further with adjudication, review, dismissal, investigation or ANY other action in regard to the the attached GRAND JURY REQUEST FOR INCLUSION IN ONGOING Nineteenth Florida Grand jury and formal complaint requests for docketing and formal disposition with governor charlie crist’s office

This Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form designed to ensure that the review and any determinations from such review of the enclosed materials are not biased by any conflicting financial interest or any other conflicting interest by those reviewers responsible for the handling of this confidential information.  Whereby any conflict with any of the main alleged perpetrators listed in the attached List of Parties of the alleged crimes referenced in these matters or any other perpetrators not know at this time must fully be disclosed and affirmed in writing and returned for review prior to any action on your part.

Disclosure forms with “Yes” answers by any party to any of the following questions are demanded 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 requisite 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, including but not limited to, conflicts, violations of public offices, interference with complaints in the Supreme Court of New York, coercion, document destruction, obstructions of justice, tampering with Federal Witnesses, RICO, ATTEMPTED MURDER, the need for prescreening for conflict is essential to the administration of due process in these matters to avoid further OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.  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 to any related matters known or unknown, such request conforming with all applicable state and federal laws, public office rules and regulations, attorney conduct codes and judicial canons or other international law and treatises requiring disclosure of conflicts and recusal from matters where conflict precludes involvement.

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 the appropriate, Federal, State, Local and International Law Enforcement Agencies, Public Integrity Officials, Judicial Conduct Officials, State and Federal Bar Associations, Disciplinary Departments and any/all other appropriate oversight 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 parties listed in attached LIST OF PARTIES to the proceeding of the matters you are reviewing?

_____NO                ____YES

 

Please describe in detail any identified conflicted parties on a separate and attached sheet.  Fully disclose 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.  Please indicate if you are seeking waiver of the conflict(s) or will be disqualifying from involvement in these matters.

 

II.      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 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(s)?

 

_____NO                ____YES

 

Please describe in detail any identified conflicted parties on a separate and attached sheet.  Fully disclose 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.  Please indicate if you are seeking waiver of the conflict(s) or will be disqualifying from involvement in these matters.

 

III.      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 consideration(s) on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information regarding the consideration(s). 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. Please indicate if you are seeking waiver of the conflict(s) or will be disqualifying from involvement in these matters.

 

IV.      Have you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, had any prior communication(s), including but not limited to, phone, facsimile, e-mail, mail, verbal, etc. with any person related to the proceeding of the Iviewit or related matters?

 

_____NO                ____YES

 

Please describe in detail any identified communication(s) on a separate and attached sheet fully disclosing all information regarding the communication(s). If the answer is YES, please describe the communication(s) in detail, including but not limited to, who was present, what type of communication, the date and time, please affirm whether such communication(s) present a conflict of interest in fairly reviewing the matters herein without undue bias or prejudice of any kind.

 

V.      I have run a thorough and exhaustive Conflict of Interest check to conform with any and all state, federal or local laws, public office rules and regulations, judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes and any other professional association rules and regulations regarding disclosure of any conflict(s) to verify that my spouse, my dependents, and I in the aggregate, have no conflict(s) with any parties to the matters referenced herein.

_____NO                ____YES

 

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

_____NO                ____YES

 


 

LIST OF PARTIES

 

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   INTEL Corporation;

·   Silicon Graphics Inc.;

·   Lockheed Martin Corporation;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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”);

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

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

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.  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;

·   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;

·   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;

·   Judge Martin Glenn, New York Southern District Bankruptcy;

·   Judge Shira A. Scheindlin;

·   Davis Polk & Wardell;

·   Ropes & Gray LLP;

·   Sullivan & Cromwell LLP;

·   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;

·   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;

·   Andrew Cuomo in his official and individual capacities,

·   Justice Richard C. Wesley in his official and individual capacities,

·   Justice Peter W. Hall in his official and individual capacities,

·   Justice Debra Ann Livingston in her official and individual capacities,

·   Justice Ralph K. Winter in his official and individual capacities

·   Justice Shira A. Scheindlin in her official and individual capacities,

·   Alan Friedberg in his official and individual capacities,

·   Roy Reardon in his official and individual capacities,

·   Judge Martin Glenn in his official and individual capacities,

·   Warner Bros. Entertainment,

·   Time Warner Communications,

·   AOL Inc.,

·   Sony Corporation,

·   Ropes & Gray,

·   Stanford Financial Group,

·   Bernard L. Madoff et al.

·   Marc S. Dreier,

·   Sony Corporation,

·   Ernst & Young,

·   Arthur Andersen,

·   SKULL AND BONES;

·   The Russell Trust Co.;

·   Yale Law School;

·   Council on Foreign Relations;

·   The Bilderberg Group;

·   The Federalist Society;

·   The Bradley Foundation;

·   The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation;

·   Trilaterals

·   Freemasonry,

 

Please include in the COI check the defendants and any other parties in the legally related cases in New York District Court Southern District of New York to Docket No 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT, including but not limited to;

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;

·         STATE OF NEW YORK;

·         THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM;

·         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;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·         GREGORY MASHBERG, in his professional and individual capacities;

·         JOANNA SMITH, in her professional and individual capacities;

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

·         ANNE SEKEL, in his professional and individual capacities;

·         JIM CLARK, in his professional and individual capacities;

·         STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA;

·         FLORIDA SUPREME COURT;

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

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

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

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

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

·         THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual capacities;

·         DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and individual capacities;

·         DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA;

·         CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA.;

·         ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and individual capacities;

·         ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual capacities;

·         PAUL CURRAN in his official and individual capacities;

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

·         SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT;

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

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

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

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

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

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

·         SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT;

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

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

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

·         STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION;

·         ANTHONY CARTUSCIELLO in his official and individual capacities;

·         LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;

·         OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK;

·         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;

·         COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA;

·         VIRGINIA STATE BAR;

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

·         NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual capacities;

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

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

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

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

·         SILICON GRAPHICS, INC.;

·         LOCKHEED MARTIN Corp;

·         EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE;

·         ALAIN POMPIDOU in his official and individual capacities;

·         WIM VAN DER EIJK in his official and individual capacities;

·         LISE DYBDAHL in her official and personal capacities;

·         DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

·         ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities;

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

·         IVIEWIT, INC., a Florida corporation;

·         IVIEWIT, INC., a Delaware corporation;

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

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

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

·         IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation;

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

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

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

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

·         IVIEWIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;

·         IVIEWIT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation;

·         IBM CORPORATION;

C.       Other 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.;

·   08cv4053          Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.;

·   08cv4438          Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.;

·   08cv6368          John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

  

 

 

Relevant Sections of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law[1]

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__.  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 – GRAND JURY REQUEST FOR INCLUSION IN ONGOING Nineteenth Florida Grand jury and formal complaint requests for docketing and formal disposition with governor charlie crist’s office.

 

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 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 strictly 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.


[1] 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

Intel Corporation Competition Case Update 2nd Notice of Intel Network SEC Violations; Case Reference HO-1248999. Similar allegations as Ivieiwt inventor Eliot I. Bernstein. Complaints filed with DOJ Holder, VP Biden, SEC Shapiro implicating Intel in RICO with Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner and more. Read all about it @ www.iviewit.tv

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

July 4, 2010; revision 5.1 with exhibit refinements, more detail on RICO proofs and monopoly pointers.

 

To:      Chairwoman Schapiro & Commissioners,

            Securities and Exchange Commission

            United States Senate

            Congressional Committees

            State Attorney Generals

            United States Attorneys

            Chairman Leibowitz & Commissioners, FTC

            Director Robert Mueller, FBI

            Honorable Eric Holder, DOJ

            Vice President Joseph Biden

 

Fm:     Mike Bruzzone

            Camp Marketing Consultancy

            6025 McBryde Avenue

            Richmond, CA  94805

 

Re:      Intel Corporation Competition Case Update

            2nd Notice of Intel Network SEC Violations; Case Reference HO-1248999

           

            - Intel consumer & industrial monopoly recoverable grows to $88 billion

            - $26.442 to $42 billion subset is consumer fraud legitimately due consumers.

            - $43.827 billion industrial monopolization due industry & harmed shareholders.

            - Quanda Model RICO proof; Intel Insider stock trading & NASDAQ market rig.

            - Lettered Relator Seeks Attorney; FCA, 31 USC 3279, recovery of monopoly &                             fraudulent cost imposed on Federal Government’s Intel based PC purchases.

 

Honorable Commissioners, Senators, Congressmen, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Vice President Joseph Biden:

 

Pursuant to Camp Marketing Consultancy ongoing Intel Network case assessment: Consumer recoverable Intel Inside transport charge, monopoly price premium, industry monopolization on Intel economic and financial analysis grows total intent to monopolize recovery, by 12%, to $88 billion. 

 

Monopoly recovery estimate is based on two investigative tracks. First, Intel monopoly system metric applied to Intel sales revenues on manufacturing estimates of Intel microprocessor quantities, per quarter, by Micro Design Resource[1].  Second, sorting out Intel monopoly system expenses misrepresented as legitimate costs within Intel financials.

 

Data analysis parallels FTC Docket 9341 time frame and covers day one on January 1, 1999 through mid 2004 on production; extending to 2006 on Intel financials.  For the purpose of optimizing in period recovery estimate, data from both investigative tracks are

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

relied.  Findings include proofs and pointers of RICO, enterprise network corruption and Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 per se condemnations of law.  Findings are submitted to FTC, U.S. DOJ Antitrust, DOJ Criminal and Consumer Fraud, New York State DOJ for follow on discovery from Intel Network.  

 

Revision 5.1 of this briefing updates State Attorney Generals on particulars of the case matters.  Is meant by this case steward; the Relator original source, too solicit counsel for False Claims Act recovery of fraudulent and monopoly costs imposed on Federal government’s Intel microprocessor based computer purchases. This analyst believes FCA is now proven on weight of Intel false statements to conceal. monopoly and fraudulent costs imposed on Federal government and related GSA computer procurement claims.

 

Further this analyst encourages dialogue between State Attorney Generals and U.S. Attorneys for establishing a coalition to recover consumer harms, in each State, which can be calculated by the domestic ‘Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area’ subset of what is a worldwide consumer recovery value.  Make sure your State and Federal District get its actual share of the consumer recovery in relation to not calculating this amount subject to worldwide distribution.  Recover the transport charge ‘kick back’ value stolen by Intel Network, from general consumers within your State and Federal buyers within your District, and not a penny less. 

 

To estimate the recovery in your own State House and Federal Building: 1) go to the IT Department; 2) find out how many Intel based PCs have been purchased and deployed their annually since May 1993; 3) multiply that amount by $25.50 each to determine your combined Federal Building and State House recovery values.   

 

Background

 

Beginning Docket 9288, May 1998, various reports and analysis are submitted by this analyst to FTC now operating in voluntary civic service capacity under Department of Labor Code 3363.5. Today a decade of analysis delivers tens of Docket 9341 discovery proofs or pointers to proofs.  Many of which this audience are familiar from prior reports by this analyst submitted to U.S. Senate, Congress, State AGs and U.S. Attorneys.

 

Under Docket 9341 discovery rules, work from this analyst is passed by FTC Bureau of Competition to Intel for legal rebuttal.

 

Three Components of Monopoly Recovery

 

Monopoly recovery is a worldwide financial value having three main components:

 

1)         Consumer recovery is based on the system costs of Intel Inside tied charge back    for routing Intel microprocessors across state lines and inter nation boundaries          inside a computer chassis. See prior analyst submissions for specific details           covering the illegal aspects of this market rigging rebate fee scheme.

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

2)         Consumer recovery from monopoly price premium associated with some Intel        microprocessor and PC product introductions.

 

3)         Industrial harms which include predatory product dumping, Intel selling at a price             less then average total cost, measures of variable down to average fixed cost.             Finally, estimation of the marginal cost for Intel to produce a single x86           microprocessor in relation to price sought with variable cost cross check. Where             price is within or lower then average fixed cost, variable or marginal cost,   revenues

            from those quantities are recorded as an industrial monopolization   recovery value             for FTC discovery.

 

Consumer Recovery Subset 1; kick back, in violation of Sherman Act Section 1, Section 2, Clayton Act Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 13e, 13c, 13d, Title 48, 1986 anti kickback act

 

Of the $26.442 billion subset of consumer recovery documented from Intel production estimates (where $42 billion total set is documented by contract), $22.657 billion or 85% is associated with Intel Inside tied charge back sum misrepresented in Intel and PC Dealer financials. That sum is split between Intel and PC Companies 50:50 for the purpose of this analysis based on the Intel Inside monopoly system metric. Yet Intel’s portion is known to increase, and PC Companies decrease, over the 15 year duration of this Intel Insider operation.

 

Intel financials associate Intel Inside as a marketing cost credited to PC Company micro- processor sales. When this commissionable sales value is actually an accrued Dealer rebate passed through Intel as a sales reward for Media Sales Agents taken as their fee, to sustain the supply chain’s product distribution ties between Intel, PC Dealers and Media Agent’s sales channels. Sales Channels include PC Week, PC Magazine, Computer Shopper, Family Computing, PC World, Windows Magazine, other PC and some general media.

 

Rebate values are sustained from back in time with forward time purchase agreements. Production short run to short run, Dealer’s microprocessor purchases are unnaturally weighted to benefit them guiding Media Agents sales preferences. Intel 1st tier Dealers purchase microprocessors in excess of end demand solely to strip margin values, including consumer transport charge, prior to reselling overage into secondary broker channels. PC Dealers who are Intel’s 1st tier brokers monopolize majority of Intel margin values, including tied charge back, sustaining their Media Sales Agent artificial attractor and the cross industry distribution tie in total.

 

This relationship is a financially driven one, planned and implemented for Media Sales Agents to register, meter, report level’s of Intel microprocessor flows through PC dealer channels back to Intel. That is the nature of the charge back; for media registering and reporting back channel sales flows through PC Companies to Intel. Over time the system evolved  into  one  which  accelerated  Dealer  product  flows  artificially  from  one  Intel product generation to the next, on the weight of Intel kickback placements meant to discharge certain Dealer inventory, to end market buyers, on an Intel time schedule.

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

One Combined Cartel Proof

 

Additionally, for Dell and Gateway certainly, Intel PC Dealers earn a cartel margin gain from their Media Sales Agents as a result of their Intel Inside kick back.  Cartel margin gain on this routing fee is secured when any PC Dealer’s annual advertising pages exceed Intel’s annual advertising pages. 

 

Under Intel Inside contract guide all PC Dealers receive the Intel Corporation advertising page frequency discount rate from Media Sales Agents.  Note the competitive limiter here for non Intel Dealers lacking this form of Intel Network scale economy.  For PC Dealers who advertise at a greater annual page frequency rate then Intel Corporation annual pages, Cartel margin gain is secured on the difference in frequency discounts applied to Intel pages verse any Dealer’s deeper ad discount rate from Media Sales Agents. 

 

CAMP MARKETING CONSULTANCY

Media

n

= 1

= 1

I
N
T
E
L

B
R
O
C
K
E
R

D
E
A
L
E
R
S

 

M
E
D
I
A

S
A
L
E
S

A
G
E
N
T
S

Intent to Monopolize Proof

Dealing Combination & Cartel Proof

Intel Inside Tied Charge Back

W
H
O

A
R
E

P
C

S
U
P
P
L
I
E
R
S

Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy, 415/250-4652                                                   FTC 1999 & 12/23/09

M
I
C
R
O
P
R
O
C
E
S
S
O
R

P

C

B
U
Y
E
R
S

Many Intel market rigging systems

mimic electronic system structures.

Charge Match

Charged Back

Microprocessor

Supply Charge

in Excess

of PC Demand.

 

TIED

CHARGE

BACK

Dealer AD

INSERTION

TRIGGER

Intel Inside Dealer

ACCRUAL

Intel’s Media

KICK BACK

Media Intel

CHARGE

BACK

1

2

4

3

PC

PUSH

Inventory

Clearing

Inventory Metering

Dealer Accrual

Charge Match

 

Media’s ad frequency discounts, called network buys, are based on any one Dealer’s annual volume page purchase agreement with Media Sales Agents.  When anyone Intel Dealer’s annual pages of advertisement exceed Intel annual pages, added margin value is earned on every Intel kick back for every future ad insertion by these foremost cartel members.  System diagram of cross enterprise industry bottleneck monopoly is depicted above.

 

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

PC Company matching half of the media sales tie triggers the tied charge back match from Intel’s Dealer Accruals to Media Sales Agents.  That value tie is misrepresented in PC Dealer financials as an advertising cost applied to every computer sale. Taken together computer end buyers pay both halves of this hidden transport charge in their computer’s end sales price. 100% of the consumer charge is taken by Media Sales Agents for directing Intel PC consumer search. Making consumer search focused, quick and easy.

 

This hidden consumer transport tax for Intel microprocessor product routing, taken by Intel and PC Companies from consumers, and paid to Media Sales Agents, is meant as a sales commission to pay for Media’s cost of Intel product sales; communications medium, display space, news coverage, Intel and Dealer content development including Dealer’s PC product reviews. For ZD, certainly, this payment was also a form of extorted tribute.

 

Because the tie is based on a variable commission reward on Intel microprocessor price, Media Sales Agents tend to push computers to consumers containing Intel’s highest priced; latest and greatest microprocessors.  Or will focus on moving large lots of slow moving Intel microprocessor based computers that have been clogging up the Intel supply system; those capable of delivering a large total reward value to Media, when routed together until discharged from Intel PC Dealer inventories.

 

The existence of this Intel tied charge back system is the accounting compliment to Dell Corporation misrepresenting Intel kickbacks; rebates and loyalty rewards, as sales revenue now under investigation by the SEC.  Intel’s half of the Dell accounting fraud is documented as cooperative advertising accounts misrepresented within Intel’s own financials since 1993.  There is currently a rather extensive accounting fraud being hidden within Intel, by Intel and Intel Network. And I would presume under current investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission?  Intel market rig was reported by this analyst to SEC in 2007; HO 1248999.

 

Intel tied charge back misrepresented in financials as a cooperative advertising expense documented contractually with Dealers x 2 for total set consumer calculation.

 

Reported in $ Billions

 

1993    1994    1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000    2001    2002    2003    2004

.325     .459     .654     .974     1.2      1.3      1.7      2.0      1.6      1.7      1.8      2.1     

 

2005    2006   

2.6       2.3      Total Docket 9341 Period of Review = $15,800,000,000

                         Total through Program Operation       = $20,712,000,000

 

Source: Intel Annual Report to Stockholders

Note: x2 by contract agreement between Intel & Dealers = $31.6 billion to $41.424 billion

 

 

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

Consumer Recovery Subset 2; monopoly price premiums -

 

The remaining 15% consumer subset recovery of $3.785 billion is associated with personal computer end buyers paying a monopoly price premium on some Intel PC purchases. That percent of product, one Intel product generation to the next, where consumers paid a monopoly price for the microprocessor above the monopoly competitive or equilibrium price. Which means computer’s containing the latest and greatest Intel microprocessors.  Computer’s featuring the highest speed, or most microprocessor cores, or the highest combination of performance and power savings in a notebook model.  Microprocessors typically offered in the high performance computer brand models within Intel Dealer PC product lines.  But can also be associated with computers containing Intel value priced microprocessors.

 

$3.785 billion dollar sum is conservative and advantages Intel on analysis which uses average price on quantities. Using preferred average weighted price across product types, the monopoly price premium can grow.  Infra marginal product, that which Intel makes least of and charges most for, offers highest end buyer recovery potential for these small short lots of monopoly priced microprocessors. Product associated with Intel new microprocessor and new PC product introductions displaying patterns of 1st degree price discrimination, exclusive dealing, the raising of microprocessor price following predatory price moves designed to monopolize markets and to stop channel sales flows of competitor’s products.  Competitors  include  x86 microprocessor horizontal competitors including AMD, chip set & graphic vertical rivals and compliments, like VIA and nVidia, other x86 and inter platform computers and some PC platform replacements.

 

One of the consumer monopoly price premium examples -

 

Below find partial economic analysis from the Intel planned economy; Pentium 3 risk production code name Katmai, 0.25 micron lithography, 450 to 600 MHz clock speeds. 

 

Katmai average weighted price is calculated on Intel 1,000 piece price and Micro Design Resource quantities on speed splits.  Micro Design Resource quantity estimates are long time and widely accepted by technology, finance and media industries who are Intel customers, stake holders and stockholders.  MDR estimates are in fact the intra industry regulator itself, that was made into an inter industry sales game by Intel Network.

 

For Katmai, economic analysis below reveals $300,990,000 in consumer loss from paying a monopoly price greater than $450 for first quarter’s production of 1,905,000 units.  Monopoly competitive equilibrium price is $363 which suggests a monopoly deadweight cost of up to $400,106,000 on second quarter production of 5,438,000 units.  Run down quantities are less than $363, with end of run quantities priced $262 down to $178; are between average total and average fixed costs.  No below fixed cost production is recorded for this specific desktop microprocessor short run. Although quantity and revenue difference in analyst and MDR Intel estimated shut down points are raised.

 

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

 

Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy                                 FTC Revised Check 5/31/2010

Camp Marketing Consultancy  

P

R
I

C

E

 

$100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$800

900

1000

2M

4M

6M

8M

10M

12M

13.343M 

AFC = $145

AWP $373

$363

$608

$450

$178

$193

$262

ATC = $277

COMPETITIVE                                     EQUALIBRIUM

 

TR

TR per Quarter or MR

É

Qty

P3 500 2/28/99

P3 450 2/28/99

P3 550 5/16/99

P3 600A 8/2/99

P3 600B 9/27/99

P3 533 9/27/99 

AVC = $133

Shut Down Point

$300,990,000 Dollars 

Monopoly Price Product 

Consumer Recoverable 

$342

7 Quarters Quantities in Millions  

I
N
F
R
A
M
A
R
G
I
N
A
L

P
R
O
D
U

C
T
I
O
N

 Mfg Cost $48.50 to $39.50 

Storm Wave with Crest and Long Face

Fast to Peak, Concentrates & Reverberation end.

   MONOPOLY PRICE LINE 

500 MHz  

450 MHz  

550 MHz  

533 MHz

500 MHz

450 MHz

600 MHz  

550 MHz

533 MHz

500 MHz

450 MHz

 

 

Foremost, consumer monopoly price premium of $300,900,000 and $764,517,480 in Intel Inside charge back values are recorded. Charge back values represent matching halves of the Intel and PC Dealer tie passed through to Media Sales Agents. In this estimate at 3% each on Intel total production revenue’s of $12,741,958,000.  The specific percentage pass through value is defined contractually within the Intel Inside contract agreement between Intel, Dealers and Media Sales Agents.  An evolutionary series of guidelines concerning tied charge back I’ve encouraged FTC to discovery for a decade now.

 

Katmai analysis is not a proof, but a pointer to two consumer losses totaling $1,065,417,480 for FTC Docket 9341 discovery.  Findings from this analyst are passed on by FTC to Intel, for Intel rebuttal.  So what has FTC learned from Intel’s document production in rebuttal?

 

Consumer Recovery Time frame

 

$3.785 billion consumer monopoly price recovery is calculated on Intel product runs occurring between January 1, 1999 and July 2004. The analysis is undergoing a third evolution of refinement.

 

For FTC Docket 9341 review period, additionally, six years of Intel production estimates are currently missing from this specific analysis.  Both the existing and remaining

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

production and price data require FTC and or DOJ discovery from Intel for validation as a monopoly proof.  RICO; specifically cross enterprise, cross profession network driven markets rigging is proven regardless.  Proven on structure and directly witnessed conduct.

 

Industrial Subset 3

 

Industrial subset is estimated principally on Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel product short runs; estimated quarterly quantities at Intel stated price in period, cross referred against Intel average total cost, average fixed cost, variable cost determined on Intel financials.  Finally, the marginal cost estimate to produce a single microprocessor from economic analysis cross checked with variable cost from Intel financials.

 

Classic economics analysis is used because classic era rules appear to offer the foundation of Intel’s economic technology until Pentium M 2005 product segmentation phase.  In decomposing Intel systems structure academic theory of the 1930s through 1970s is insightful.  This key for decomposing Intel systems theory appears established using similar texts that Messrs. Moore, Grove, Barrett and other executives might have been taught, as the syllabus of FTC primary and secondary case research documents[2].  Although practiced on a slightly more sophisticated level then solely running the neighborhood breakfast shop or determining the customer demand for egg dishes.  Intel system mechanics appear to be designed by engineers and system theorists.

 

Economic Calculations

 

Five primary calculations are used in Intel economic analysis decomposing a cost based quantitative mathematical model relied on by inside traders for playing the Intel stock price.  Price multiplied by quantities to determine quarterly revenue and change in revenue. Change in price and quantities to determine price elasticity.  For a cost based model, change in revenue (suspect as change in total cost), divided by change in total quantity for estimating marginal cost average. The result can correlate with variable cost cross check from financials. Change in revenue (suspect as cost) divided by change in quantity suspect at Marginal Revenue approximation.  Actually an indicator of Intel product stocks acceleration, the calculation can be compared against the cross check MR = P*(1-1/Elasticity).

 

One of the At and < Fixed Cost Examples -

 

Below find example of Pentium 3 Celeron Mobile Value priced at and below fixed cost. On revenue of $3,132,065,000 estimates industrial monopolization of $2,780,853,050 where price is less than Average Fixed Cost of $136; and $351,211,950 industrial monopolization where price is at or less than Average Variable Cost of $117 and suspect below Marginal

 

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

Cost at production end of run.  Intel Inside tied charge back consumer recovery value associated with this Intel mobile short run is $187,923,900.

 

Camp Marketing Consultancy    

Celeron Pentium III Mobile Value Copper mine 128 L2

450 MHz to 933 MHz @ 0.18 micron, 106 mm sq

1q 2000 – 4q 2002

MDR Estimate Quantity by Speed

Analyst Average Weighted Price on Intel Price & Speed Split

 

$25 

50 

75

100 

125 

150 

175 

200 

225 

  250   

275  

$300  

AFC = $136

ATC = $253

Mfg Cost @ $52 - $35

550

500

450

600

550

500

450

650

600

550

500

700

650

600

550

500

750

733

700

650

600

 

800

750

733

700

650

600

866

850

800

750

733

700

650

 

900

866

850

800

750

700

733

700

 

933

900

866

850

800

750

700

733

700

 

PIII-S Tualatin

Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing Consultancy                                                                Revised Check  6/20/2010

AWP = $121

AVC = $117


S
A
L
E
S

M
O
N
O
P
O
L
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N

Quantities, by quarter, 12 quarters in 9341 Time Frame

$119

$126

$132

$119

$96

É

▲TR per Quarter or MR

Qty

TR

 

Calculated primarily on average product price, industrial monopolization is currently estimated at $43.827 billion for the period January 1, 1999 through June 2004.  That is one  half  of  the  time  period  under  review  in  Docket  9341. Industrial recovery values principally include Intel product price, near and below average fixed cost, with a variable cost check. Approximately 28%, or $9.781 billion of the total sum, has been estimated on classic economics, economic calculations and financials too be priced less then the marginal cost for Intel to produce that single unit of production.  With evolution of the economic calculation to average weighted price on product speed grade splits, industrial monopoly recoverable is expected to be slightly less then stated here.  Coincidently this average price, verse average weighted price trade off, may cause some consumer recovery values to rise.

 

Accounting vs. Economics

 

This analyst takes the accounting view that Intel marginal cost to produce one unit is the Average Total Cost of that unit.  An industrial economist might argue that marginal cost is no  less  then  Average  Fixed  Cost  per  unit.  Some  have  proposed  marginal  cost as the

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

Manufacturing cost for one unit which this analyst rejects; although economic analysis suggests. Where Intel price is at or less than marginal cost defined here as fixed cost, or variable cost, that portion of the production run is subject to Areeda Turner review. 

 

However, Intel intent to monopolize appears proved on 9th Circuit Court filter regardless.  Showing monopolization; economically & structurally, occurring across consecutive Intel microprocessor production short runs.  This analyst has assessed 23 production short runs.

 

Quantitative Model confirms RICO proof of Intel Insider stock trading.

 

In analyzing the economics of Intel production short runs for FTC, this analyst has been decomposing the components of an Intel insider stock trading tool.  Recomposed components of the tool yield a rudimentary Intel economics simulation.

 

The tool requires one quasi public, and one public signal, that when filtered together enable the inside trader to estimate changes in Intel’s revenue and margin out into the future. And can specifically be used to estimate Intel profit margin ahead into future time; for playing the stock price, INTC.

 

Input to perform the necessary economics calculations to play the stock are supplied by the quasi public signal from Micro Design Resource; which are Intel quarterly microprocessor quantities estimated two years into future time. The public signal is Intel change in price notices which are widely publicized in business, finance and trade news sources; including New York Times, PC Week, CNET, Register and other hard copy and web publications. Who knew they were more then simply Intel price announcements?

 

Intel change in price notices have traditionally been released to the public audience, trade and Intel supply channels 90 days ahead of the actual price changes taking affect. This lag effect gives the Intel Inside Stock trader a 90 day window for recalculating change in Intel revenues and profit margins for playing the stock.  And can be accomplished simply

with two inputs; price change calculated against Micro Design Resource quantities estimated into future time.

 

Typically the inside trader could project Intel revenue and margin value 3 months ahead on Intel advance notice of changes in microprocessor prices. Periodically, public notice of Intel price change has been shorter then 3 months. And multiple price changes have occurred within some Intel quarterly production periods under analysis.

 

Mr. Gwennap who is principle analyst and proprietor of Micro Design Resource (MDR), raised concerns on his perceived misuse of MDR Intel production estimates, by the investment banking community, to this analyst in 2001. Mr. Gwennap provided the Intel production estimates on which this analyst has decomposed the Quanda against Intel 1,000 piece stated price.  Resulting in a tool for retrospectively playing Intel Corporation stock price and for calculating monopoly costs and consumer harms based on change in quarterly revenue and margin potential.

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

Several questions exist concerning future time Micro Design Resource estimate of Intel microprocessor quantities on wafer dice estimates. First are they purely an MDR estimate of Intel production capability? Second, might estimates be Intel’s actual production forecast passed to MDR for industry publication?  Third, if purely MDR estimates were quantities confirmed by Intel end of quarter, as quarterly PC shipments are confirmed by PC Companies to PC industry analysts?  Fourth, how accurate are the MDR estimates?  Fifth, and the wild card, are estimates fictitious designed by late 1990’s MDR owner, the Bill Ziff Davis Publishing Company, purely to lead and pump the stock price? 

  

Micro Design Resource estimates of Intel production are widely accepted as accurate.  Given the best price projection and economic tools Intel Inside traders can calculate change in Intel revenue and margin, by microprocessor product line, and from the outcome play the stock on quarterly financial outcomes up to two years into the future.  I have  no   doubt  all  major  trading  houses  knew  of  the  Quanda,  including Robertson Stephens, and were running this software simulation on Intel Xeon servers performing similar exchange calculations and financial simulations. 

 

Noteworthy the Quanda is also how Media Sales Agents calculated their future revenue flows from Intel Network.  Retrospectively, the Quanda enables the Media Sales Agent to calculate their Intel Inside charge back flows from Intel Combine up to two years into the future.  On this cash flow projection media based their Intel product production plan; the amount of Intel dedicated page space, Dealer PC product reviews and sales coverage.

 

The Quanda can also be used to estimate advance PC company revenues and margins; specifically Intel Dealers; Dell, Gateway, others by extending the simulations inputs to two additional public signals. Those signals are sales space invested by Ziff Davis, IDG and other publications on PC product coverage and review pages.

 

Media Sales Agents push computer brand models known to carry the highest value Intel Inside charge backs.  Media focuses on skimming these Intel and Dealer values through their focused PC review coverage. Intel product allocation to Dealers can be estimated by the specific weight of PC Company brand models that Media Agents push onto consumers in real time.

 

Two metrics can be used for determining which Dealer’s computer brand models Media Sales Agents are pushing onto consumers for their Intel ‘tied charge’ kick back.  The best metric here shown in PC World analysis, below, is purely the page space allocated to any one Dealer’s PC brand model product reviews.  With this method there is no subjectivity associated with Editorial Accolade, the sole determinants being Media Sales Agent cost of page space and kick back revenues on this investment in Intel Dealership.

 

The second metric is more subjective, harder to prove as a stand alone indicator, potentially much more evil from the standpoint of an affront to journalism.  That is when the  Media  Sales  Agent  begins  skewing Editor’s Choice and similar Product Awards to

 

SEC, U.S. Senate, Congressional Committees, State Attorney Generals, U.S. Attorneys

 

Dealer’s brand models.  This tactic is relied upon for accelerated sales and major capture of the Intel tied charge back.  Note that Media Sales Agents compete with one another for total kick back values associated from anyone Intel production short run.  For the purpose of this analysis that charge back value is always 3% (times 2; one half representing Intel kick back, the other is Dealer half representing charge back trigger) calculated against Intel total revenues from anyone production short run.

 

Method 1 on Media Agent Space Dedicated to Dealer Sales

 

Following exhibit shows ‘poker.com’ style statistical analysis for publisher computer brand review support revealing Intel dealer channels.  That analysis looks upward in the value chain through the monetary exchange lens of media sales agents, through Intel microprocessor broker and computer dealers, directly into Intel. 

 

Statistical Analysis of Intel intra platform product routing by Dealer computer brand model in International Data Group’s PC World Top PC Sales Racket follows.

 

Note: Post rebated fee year 2008 level market high = 233%; market average = 166%.

 

Intel PC Dealer

3/2005 - 12/2008

1999-2/2005

1987-1998

 

A

113.00%

265.00%

0.00%

B

170.00%

111.00%

136.00%

C