Posts Tagged ‘person’

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

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC & FBI Complaint with Mary Schapiro & Others against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner

Sunday, March 14th, 2010

IVIEWIT PRESS RELEASE SEC, FBI AND MORE CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS - READ ALL ABOUT IT

Copy of Press Release at the Totally Awesome Free Press 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-1268580941.html

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC & FBI Complaint with Mary Schapiro & Others against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner

SUMMARY

The SEC & DOJ notified of the alleged Major Shareholder Fraud by these leading blue chip companies & Shareholders need to be aware of the Iviewit Complaint and undisclosed massive liabilities.

FORMAL CRIMINAL COMPLAINT TO SEC & FBI RE SHAREHOLDER FRAUD BY LEADING BLUE CHIPS

Corp Management of 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 have known about the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Liabilities for years & allegedly have concealed the liabilities from Shareholders & in some instances reorganized to the detriment of Shareholders in alleged fraudulent transactions, which may lead to Shareholder Rescissory Rights & catastrophic damage to the companies as complained of to Fed Officials.

FEB 12, 2010 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT

The SEC Complaint filed Feb 12, 2010, “Iviewit & Eliot I. Bernstein Official Formal Complaint…against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. & Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged Fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 & other SEC accounting violations & violations of State, Federal & Int’l Laws; Rescissory Rights of Shareholders; Evidence & Important Info for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Sir Robert Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon, Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen & more”

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

ADDRESSED TO:

SEC Chair Mary Shapiro
SEC IG, H. David Kotz
IG OF THE US DOJ, Glenn Fine
FBI
HOUSE & SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
NY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
US AG, Eric Holder
Treasury IG, David Gouvaia
SBA IG, Peggy Gustafson & Daniel O’Rourke
US DEP OF COMMERCE IG, Todd Zinser
Under Sec of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Dir of the USPTO, David Kappos
Deputy Under Sec of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Deputy Dir of the USPTO, Sharon Barner
USPTO - OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT & DISCIPLINE DIR, Harry I. Moatz
US PRESIDENT, Hon President of the US, Barack H. Obama II
FILED AGAINST
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Barry Meyer
Pres & COO: Alan Horn
EVP & CFO: Edward Romano
VP & Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne Smith
AOL, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Tim Armstrong
GC & EVP: Ira Parker
Counsel - Patent Lit, Prosecution & Licensing: Christopher Day
Exec Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley
Time Warner, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Jeffrey Bewkes
EVP & GC: Paul Cappuccio

MARCH 29, 2009 SEC COMPLAINT INTEL, LOCKHEED MARTIN & SGI

A SEC complaint also was filed by Iviewit against Intel, SGI & Lockheed & similar allegations were levied against these corps for Patent Theft, knowing infringement & Shareholder Fraud.
The March 29th 2009 SEC Complaint to Shapiro titled “Complaint Regarding Intel Corp & Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel Shareholders & Others”

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

12 COUNT 12 TRILLION DOLLAR FED RICO & ANTITRUST SUIT LEGALLY MARKED
“RELATED” TO NY SUPREME COURT WHISTLEBLOWER SUIT

Liabilities for the complained of companies centers on both knowing technology infringements & liabilities from failure to report the Fed RICO & ANTITRUST filed by Iviewit & now legally marked “RELATED” to the Whistleblower suit of Christine C. Anderson, a former staff attorney for the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division. Anderson gave riveting testimony of systemic corruption to the NY State Senate Judiciary & in sworn testimony in before Judge Shira Scheindlin of Whitewashing & Criminal Obstruction by Court Officials for “Favored Lawyers & Law Firms, the US Attorney in New York, the DA and Asst DA” or words to that effect. Anderson further fingered one of the “CLEANERS” of ATTORNEY MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS at the NY Supreme Court as Naomi Goldstein.
A “CLEANER” at the ETHICS department of NY responsible for attorney regulation in Manhattan & the WallStreet financial district, perhaps the reason the country is suffering from a lack of attorney regulation in the heart of the financial district that has led to lax or complicit regulators and prosecutors and a worldwide economic meltdown.

Anderson’s testimony

http://www.iviewit.tv/20090608nysjudiciaryhearing/index.htm

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=205

Bernstein testimony before the NY Senate Judiciary of systemic corruption that has blocked due process & procedure via corrupt infiltration of the NY Courts @
http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=189

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

HOUSE OF CARD COLLAPSING ON NY CRIME SYNDICATE INSIDE NY COURTS, ETHICS DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC OFFICES & REGULATORY AGENCIES BY CRIMINAL LAW FIRMS & LAWYERS

The House of Cards is Crumbling on Key Players in the Iviewit Scandal as the NY Corruption Scandal Elevates to Senior NY Political Figures including Cuomo & members of the NY Supreme Court & US Fed Courts in NY.

Proskauer Rose

Proskauer, mastermind of the bungled attempt to steal the Iviewit patents through Fraud on the US Patent Office & further bungled attempts to cover up the crimes in the NY Courts is under further scrutiny with Proskauer’s direct involvement in the Stanford Financial Ponzi & subsequent resignation of partner Thomas Sjoblom, a former SEC enforcement officer, allegedly found coaching Stanford employees on how to lie to SEC & FBI investigators at a Miami Airport Hanger preceding the arrest of Stanford & his employees. Proskauer also sued in a Class Action suit for the entire 7 billion dollar Stanford losses & sued by an arrested Stanford employee. Proskauer has further direct ties to both the Madoff & Dreier Ponzis.

NY Attorney General Cuomo

Following the illegal representation by the NY AG in the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST suit & Anderson’s Whistleblower suit under Spitzer as NY AG, the Cuomo Admin continues to represent illegally State Defendants in both cases left over by Spitzer (a named Defendant in the RICO and Antitrust). As the Iviewit & Anderson claims are further investigated & litigated these present the largest liability to Cuomo’s run for any office as the largest scandal brewing in NY begins to unravel with his offices dead center.

Anderson’s filing

http://www.frankbrady.org/TammanyHall/Documents_files/Anderson%20111609%20Filing.pdf

Iviewit filings of Illegal rep by Cuomo @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Oposition%20to%20AG%20Cuomo%20letter%20email%20copy.pdf

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090129%20Final%20Extension%20of%20Time%202%20SIGNED%20low.pdf

The US District Court

With Anderson’s revelations in the US District Court & the Jury finding that her 1st Amendment Rights to Free Speech regarding Whistleblower Allegations had been violated, the whole case has been called into question & further questioned due to the ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION of the NY AG Cuomo’s office. Based on Cuomo’s illegal representation of State Officials, Anderson filed for an entirely new hearing based on the Cuomo’s mass conflicts. Iviewit alleges that NY AG Cuomo’s illegal representation of State Defendants, Officially & Personally, violates his office duties & obligations of honest services to NY, public office rules and violates state & federal laws, whereby the Conflicts of Interest act to block investigation of the State Defendants fingered by Whistleblower Anderson &in Iviewit’s suit, causing Obstruction of Justice through Fraud on the Court. Serious allegations for Cuomo who continues to illegally represent State Officials on public funds, while failing to investigate those same public officials, including former NY Chief Judge Judith Kaye. Also of concern is if these massive liabilities have been reported to State Auditors by Cuomo?

The US 2nd Circuit

In the US Second Circuit, Iviewit filed a “Motion to Compel” compelling that court to follow law, as with Anderson’s revelations exposing court members, that court has tried to ILLEGALLY Dismiss all the legally “related” cases to Anderson in attempts to bury them & keep the lids on the scandal that may lead them to exchange their legal robes for prison garb.

Motion to Compel

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=78

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf

Iviewit & Eliot I. Bernstein Official Formal Complaint sent by Official SEC Email and Official Email Addresses to Other Investigatory Agencies and Committees addressed herein, Against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. and Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 and other SEC, accounting violations and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws; Rescissory rights of Shareholders; Evidence and Important Information for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Sir Robert Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon, Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen and more.

Saturday, February 13th, 2010

 I eyeball31VIEWeyeball31IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Surf with Vision

 

FOR A COLOR SIGNED FINGERPRINTED FILED COPY CLICK ME - FOR HYPERACTIVE VERSION READ ON

Eliot I. Bernstein

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

Friday, February 12, 2010

 

OFFICIAL COMPLAINT Addressed to all of the following parties:

SEC, Chairperson Mary Shapiro @ CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov and enforcement@sec.gov,

SEC, Office of Chief Accountant @ enforcement@sec.gov,

SEC, Office of International Affairs @ enforcement@sec.gov,

SEC, Office of International Enforcement Assistance @ enforcement@sec.gov,

SEC, Division of Enforcement @ enforcement@sec.gov,

SEC, Office of Internet Enforcement @ enforcement@sec.gov,

SEC, Division of Corporate Finance @ enforcement@sec.gov,

SEC, Division of Corporate Finance Chief Accountant’s Office ( CF-OCA ) @ , enforcement@sec.gov

SEC INSPECTOR GENERAL, H. David Kotz @ oig@sec.gov

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Glenn Fine @ glenn.a.fine@usdoj.gov & oig.hotline@usdoj.gov ,

Federal Bureau of Investigation – White Collar Crime Unit and all other appropriate divisions @  Miami@ic.fbi.gov ,

HOUSE AND SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES @ john.conyers@mail.house.gov ,

NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE @ members’ individual email addresses,

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Eric Holder, Jr., @ inspector.general@usdoj.gov & AskDOJ@usdoj.gov

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, David Gouvaia @ Complaints@tigta.treas.gov and david.gouvaia@tigta.treas.gov

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, Peggy E. Gustafson & Daniel J. O’Rourke @ daniel.o’rourke@sba.gov &    http://web.sba.gov/oigcss/client/dsp_welcome.cfm Complaint Form

US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INSPECTOR GENERAL, Todd J. Zinser @ hotline@oig.doc.gov

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the US Patent Office, David Kappos @ david.kappos@USPTO.gov

Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO, Sharon Barner @ Sharon.Barner@USPTO.gov  

US PATENT OFFICE - OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT AND DISCIPLINE DIRECTOR, Harry I. Moatz @ Harry.Moatz@USPTO.GOV

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, The Honorable President of the United States Barack Obama @ Facsimile +1 (202) 456-2461

This FORMAL OFFICIAL COMPLAINT is filed with the Official SEC Complaint Intake Email Address: enforcement@sec.gov & CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov and also filed with all investigators or committees the letter is addressed to, please make this Formal Complaint a part of all ongoing investigations or committees’ records regarding Iviewit companies and Eliot I, Bernstein, Inventor.

Re:      Official Formal Complaint sent by Official SEC Email and Official Email Addresses to Other Investigatory Agencies and Committees addressed herein, Against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. and Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 and other SEC, accounting violations and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws; Rescissory rights of Shareholders; Evidence and Important Information for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and more.

Complaint filed against, including but not limited to;

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
Chairman and CEO: Barry M. Meyer; Pres+ident and COO: Alan F. Horn; EVP and CFO: Edward A. Romano; Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne M. Smith

AOL, Inc.
Chairman and CEO: Tim Armstrong; General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development: Ira Parker; Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing: Christopher Day; Executive Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley

Time Warner, Inc.
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer: Jeffrey L. Bewkes; Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Time Warner Inc.: Paul T. Cappuccio

* For a more complete list of complained of parties herein from these companies, see Exhibit 1.

 

Conflict of interest disclosure form – please read and accept prior to further handling of this complaint.  The form is listed as exhibit 2.

 

FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES AGAINST YOU!

 

INTRODUCTION – BACKGROUND INFO

 

I, Eliot Bernstein, of 2753 NW 34th Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33434, as one of the Original Owners and Inventors of revolutionary “backbone technologies” that transformed digital video and imaging, am filing this FORMAL COMPLAINT with the SEC and all agencies and committees addressed herein, against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Inc. and Time Warner Cable, whereby these companies and all of their subsidiaries, affiliates, contractors, agents and employees collectively are referred to herein as (“Warner Bros et al.”).  Please note that these companies previously were under the same corporate structure during most, if not all, of the critically relevant times to this complaint.  This timeframe includes both the original merger of Warner Bros et al. to the recent breakup of Warner Bros et al. and the allegations levied herein may have directly, and illegally, influenced those transactions to the detriment of Shareholders.  Future detrimental effects on Shareholders, if failure to investigate these matters is not instant, may result in causing further massive losses to Shareholders of these highly traded New York Stock Exchange companies.  The losses could be thousands of times greater than the Ponzi Schemes of Stanford, Madoff and Dreier combined and those schemes evidenced herein have ties to the alleged crimes described herein.

For your convenience, I have attached the following link to a Press Statement issued about the Merger of Warner Bros et al. back in 2000.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aol 

and

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,667602,00.html

In addition, I make a special note concerning the urgency and Time Sensitive nature of these matters predicated upon various factors, including but not limited to, the recent corporate split of AOL Inc. and Time Warner, Inc., which itself should be fully and completely investigated by the SEC as part of this complaint with direct correlation to the matters herein, for all of the reasons set forth herein.  The Investigation should, include but not be limited to, all original stock and securities related transactions in the original Warner Bros et al. merger and all transactions forward.  All of these transactions dating back to 1998 may have been influenced by the alleged fraud and involvement in criminal activity described herein.

            Leading Industry Experts working inside Warner Bros et al. (See attached Exhibit 1 – List of Warner Bros et al. contacts) and related companies, tested, used, viewed, approved, validated, Contracted and Licensed

February 15, 2001 ~ Signed Licensing Contract –  

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf

 

 my technologies under multiple Non Disclosures and other Licensing Agreements.  Attached hereto are various Internal communications within Warner Bros et al. documenting the relationship and admitted uses, including an ADMISSION by technologists within the organization, that my Technologies were being infringed upon AFTER NDA’s had been executed.  These agreements then resulted in a Signed and Executed Licensing Agreement at that time as illustrated and exhibited herein. Warner Bros et al. and others complained of herein may be perpetrating Massive Fraud on their Shareholders through concealment of these Massive Liabilities resulting from the theft and unauthorized uses of my technologies over almost a decade. 

The technologies have revolutionized digital imaging and video hardware and software and instantly heralded by leading experts in 1998 as the “Holy Grail” of the Internet that allows quality video and imaging as now used worldwide by almost every user of a PC.  But broader than merely the Internet the technologies are used on virtually every camera, video camera, television, medical imaging device, telescope, microscope, satellite, DVD, graphics chip, gaming hardware and software, flight and space simulators,  etc. and paved the way for new markets entirely, such as cell phone video and Voice Over Internet Protocol (“VOIP”).

Then it was discovered that our Intellectual Property Attorneys from Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley”) and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel LLP (“Meltzer”) with the help of early licensors of my technologies, including Intel Corporation (“Intel”), Lockheed Martin (“Lockheed”), Silicon Graphics Inc. (“SGI” ), Warner Bros., AOL, IBM and more, tried to grab the “Grail”.  When caught, as evidenced herein, these powerful law firms and blue chip companies resorted to terrorist styled attacks on the key inventor, including a Car Bombing and Death threats. 

As I have attempted to pursue my rights and report their crimes, they have further resorted to a litany of cover up crimes in the courts and at regulatory agencies and again they were caught violating law and public offices over the last nine years in efforts to stave off prosecution for their crimes.  All of these offenses are subject to multiple ongoing State, Federal and International investigations and a Twelve 12 Twelve, 12 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit.

May 09, 2008 Federal RICO 12 Count 12 Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Amended Complaint @

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

.  The Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit has been marked legally “RELATED” to a Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit of a New York Supreme Court Staff Attorney, discussed herein in under the section Titled “Discussion of Ongoing Lawsuits and Related Cases to Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson” . Sony, Intel, Lockheed, IBM, Silicon Graphics and others are also complained of herein and all authorities this complaint is addressed too should investigate all those Defendants in my Amended Complaint exhibited herein, many for similar and identical crimes.

Time Sensitive Urgency to this Complaint; POTENTIAL Catastrophic Effects to the Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.; Fraud could Trigger Rescissory Shareholder Rights

 

To further establish the urgency and Time Sensitive nature of this FORMAL COMPLAINT, please note that the criminal fraud and other crimes described herein will likely trigger Rescissory Rights of Shareholders at all of the respective and related companies of Warner Bros et al., which likely will have Catastrophic impact on both the companies and its Shareholders.  Therefore, the SEC must instantly investigate these matters and instantly bring the matters to the attention of the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders, Auditors, Financial Institutions and all other parties with potential liabilities resulting from the allegations herein and whereby if the companies and their Executives fail to notify Shareholders and Regulators, the SEC must act quickly to notify them.  The SEC must begin immediate investigation of the Securities Frauds described herein and prevent ongoing and future fraudulent corporate transactions from further harming Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.

Further, I point out to the SEC herein what looks like a recent pattern of Shareholder Fraud and Deceit done with Scienter, beginning on or about March 2009, by Officers, Directors, Counsel and Auditors for Warner Bros et al., which are alleged to have been done in order to commit further fraud upon the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders.  That these recent corporate restructurings may be the result of Key Executives of Warner Bros et al. attempting to abscond with corporate assets through a series of recent complex corporate breakups.  The breakups began immediately after I contacted Warner Bros. in March 2009 with my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq. (“Hall”), regarding massive unreported liabilities to their Shareholders

A similar alleged corporate restructuring through the Bankruptcy court was done by SGI several days after notice of liabilities almost identical to those described herein and is discussed in more detail in the section titled “IVIEWIT SEC COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST INTEL, LOCKHEED MARTIN AND SGI”

Liabilities resulting from Warner Bros et. al’s involvement in my Twelve Count Twelve Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and additional liabilities resulting from the knowing infringement of my Intellectual Properties and for their failure to report these  liabilities under FASB No.5 and other laws.

This Formal Complaint for Investigation of Warner Bros et al. on this day, Friday, February 12, 2010comes after Hall and I made repeated Good Faith attempts  since March 2009 to address the Business and Corporate Responsibility issues with Executives, Officers, Board Members and Auditors at the respective companies.  Warner Bros et al. was contacted in order to find possible solutions to avoid catastrophic events from occurring to their Shareholders, if possible, prior to further actions with investigators, including the SEC. 

The following timeline of events will establish the correlations between the allegations of fraud described herein, in relation to the timing of the corporate restructurings of Warner Bros et al.  Correlations in time with both the 2001 merger and now in the 2009 breakup with the frauds described herein, will provide the SEC a basis, mired in factual evidence, to begin immediate investigation of this complaint for massive securities fraud, in order to protect Shareholders from further possible related losses in these highly traded blue chip stocks.

TIMELINE OF WARNER BROS ET AL. RELATIONSHIP WITH IVIEWIT

 

            The following Timelines are presented to give a factual timeline to the allegations herein, the exhibits are linked online and all Uniform Resource Locators (“URL”) and Exhibited Links throughout this document are hereby incorporated, in entirety by reference herein, including over 1000 evidentiary links on the homepage at www.iviewit.tv with exhibits that contain thousands of pages of factual evidence.

 

All Agencies addressed herein, should print all exhibits referenced herein, as the Whistleblower case of Anderson points to Official Document Destruction and Tampering of Evidence.

The timeline will also reveal facts regarding the relationships between many of the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and Warner Bros et al., including relations to the main perpetrator of the alleged crimes, the law firm Proskauer Rose. 

 

*Note Warner Bros et al. relevant mergers, acquisitions and breakups to these matters in the timeline below are in bold italics.

 

1998-2002 Relevant Communications Between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al.

 

·         1998-2001 Inventions in Imaging and Video Discovered and Intellectual Property Filings begin in 1998.  Proskauer Rose was retained Intellectual Property counsel for Iviewit for filing of Intellectual Properties.

·         2000-2002Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.

Non-Disclosure Agreements @

Pages 1-5, 10, 61-62, 80, 108-109, 234

·         November 02, 2000 ~ Letter to GS regarding Warner Bros. Technological Calls to Iviewit Investors by Warner Bros. employees, describing the efficacy of the Inventions and the results of the review by Warner Bros., including the anticipated uses by Warner Bros et al.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20001101%20Goldman%20Friedstein%20Letter%20from%20Buchsbaum%20re%20AOLTW%20Colter%20meetings.pdf

·         January 11, 2001 ~ America Online and Time Warner Complete Merger to Create AOL Time Warner

AOL PRESS RELEASE COMPLETED MERGER WITH TIME WARNER

 

·         February 08, 2001 ~ Letter from David J. Colter (“Colter”) ~ Vice President Technology - Technological Operations Warner Bros. to Founder of AOL, Ted Leonsis (“Leonsis”), regarding the efficacy of the Iviewit technologies.

 

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010208%20Colter%20to%20Leonsis%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL.pdf

·        February 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - Signed Warner Bros. License  And Service Agreement @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf

·         August 15, 2001   Irell & Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @

 

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Paul%20Allen/old%20patent/LEGAL/Irell%20&%20Manella/Bills/2001%2008%2029%20-%20Irell%20Bill.pdf

 

o   It is imperative for the SEC to note that after the Signed Licensing and Service Agreement, Iviewit opened a California Office inside a Warner Bros. building, in order to take over encoding operations for their online content, and more.  Iviewit began billing according to the Licensing and Service agreement.  Please note the language in the Licensing and Service agreement pertaining to the Proprietary nature and Confidentiality of the Iviewit inventions.

Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees.  Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office. 

It should be noted here that the US Patent Office upon reviewing the patents found enough evidence of FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE to OFFICIALLY SUSPEND THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES FILED BY PROSKAUER, FOLEY AND MELTZER, while INVESTIGATIONS of the LAWYERS involved is ONGOING, including Proskauer, Foley, Meltzer, Rubenstein and Joao, as further described and exhibited later herein.

At this point, allegedly, a coordinated conspiratorial effort between Smith, Rubenstein and others began to derail the already signed Iviewit agreements with Warner Bros et al. 

Allegedly, former “Acting CEO” of Iviewit, P. Stephen Lamont, (a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement.  Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the Signed and Binding agreement is wholly denied. The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, it may still be considered effective.  Yet, it would difficult to cancel what one tries to deny the existence of and perhaps the reason no cancellation was formally completed. 

o   The emails forward from this point in the timeline begin to attempt to hide from the fact that Licensing and Service Agreements were already in place while also hiding these facts and liabilities from Shareholders and Auditors.  The alleged fraud may again have catastrophic effect on these highly traded stocks, reaching back to this point in time and possibly further back.

·         April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. “Bill” Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL.  AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010404%20Colter%20to%20Raduchel%20Leonsis%20referral%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

·         May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment.  Chey, formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony (also under Signed Agreements) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor.  Since that time, Warner Bros et al. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010525%20Sony%20Doug%20Chey%20Endorsement%20of%20Tech%20and%20Advisory%20Board%20Option%20letter.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100120%20Douglas%20Chey%20Sony%20Bio.pdf

o   The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION of Sony’s involvement in these matters.  Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors.  I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony.  The SEC and all other investigators and committees addressed herein, can take this Formal Complaint additionally as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY.

·         December 20, 2001 ~ Lamont letter to Rubenstein regarding Smith and Rubenstein and the refusal of Rubenstein to RE-OPINE to Smith due to what he claims is a “CONFLICT”, which led further to the breakdown of relations between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al.  Lamont later affirmed to Shareholders in a written communication that Microsoft had planted him in the Iviewit companies.  Later Lamont changed that story to AOL and Leonsis’ niece had planted him in Iviewit through AOL Founder Leonsis’ best friend Chuck Brunelas (“Brunelas”).  Brunelas recruited under contract Lamont to the Iviewit companies on behalf of Leonsis.  Lamont’s revelations of being a plant at the company, which came after he was hired, led to the termination of Lamont at that time.  

March 11, 2005 Lamont Termination Letter

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2005%2003%2011%20Lamont%20Employment%20Termination%20Letter%20SIGNED%20Lamont%20Copy.pdf

December 20, 2001 Lamont Letters to Rubenstein ~

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020611%20System%20and%20Method%20for%20Fraud%20on%20USPTO.pdf

Pages 455-462

November 09, 2001 ~ Brunelas Employment Agreement

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20011109%20Chuck%20Brunelas%20Agreement%20re%20Warner%20Bros%20AOLTW.pdf

o   Based on new information since that time, it is alleged that Rubenstein, Lamont, Leonsis and Smith operated together to sabotage Iviewit/Warner Bros et al. relations and others, purposefully to breach the prior signed licensing agreements and avoid paying the royalties owed to the Iviewit companies, using the old “good guy / bad guy” routine.

o   The SEC should note here that Hall and I recently reported Lamont to Federal and State authorities for alleged collusion in the RICO and ANTITRUST activities claimed in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit, including ongoing criminal activities. 

Also learned since that time, is that P. Stephen Lamont may have had prior fraudulent securities related problems at his former employer Digital Factory, not disclosed in his resume submitted by Brunelas.

Further, Lamont continues to represent himself and Iviewit Shareholders as the Iviewit CEO, when he is fully aware of his termination from employment and that he has no authorization from the Board of Directors, Management or Shareholders to represent their security interests in Iviewit companies, this securities fraud also should be subject for investigation by the SEC. 

o   Lamont claims to be CEO of Iviewit Technologies, Inc. in multiple correspondences and Federal court papers with an address at 175 King Street, Armonk, N.Y. 10504.  To the best of my knowledge, no Iviewit office is authorized or incorporated at this address or in the state of New York.  The office is directly across the street from Defendant in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit IBM’s world headquarters.

o   Additional Evidence for the SEC regarding Lamont is contained in a June 18, 2009 Letter to New York Attorney General Chief of Staff, Steven M. Cohen regarding fraudulent activities of Lamont @

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

o   The SEC should note here that Lamont’s initial resume submitted by Iviewit contracted employment recruiter, Brunelas, is materially different and contradicts what Lamont himself recently claims regarding his past on the Iviewit Homepage, in multiple court filings and other letters to Iviewit shareholders.

§  Original 2001 Resume Submitted to Iviewit on P. Stephen Lamont by Brunelas @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Lamont%20Resume%20Given%20to%20Iviewit%20by%20Chuck%20Brunelas%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

§  2001 Resume Claims the following:

Columbia University School of Law ~ J. D. in Commercial and Regulatory Law - May 1992

Columbia University Graduate School of Business ~ M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting - May 1981

State University of New York at Cortland ~ B.A. in Economics - June 1978

 

§  2009 Iviewit Homepage Statement written by P. Stephen Lamont claims:

 

“By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former Acting CEO of Iviewit (counsel advised all Iviewit executives to resign their posts and work along side Iviewit rather than within Iviewit, as the former Board of Directors, Counsel and Accountants, disbanded without requisite notice to Shareholders in violation of law, thereby leaving massive liability and exposure) and a significant shareholder in Iviewit.  With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering”  Source www.iviewit.tv homepage.

 

Whereby Lamont’s legal and other degrees claimed are wholly different and therefore false in one or both of his background accounts as they are materially different, again causation for further investigation of Lamont by the SEC and other investigators this letter has been copied or addressed to.

 

Further, you will note that Lamont refers to himself as “former Acting CEO of Iviewit” and claims counsel advised him to resign any official role due to the potential for charges of fraud, and I advised Lamont to follow counsels’ advice and personally, I did not accept any official roles on counsels’ advice.  Yet, even in recent court documents and other illegally signed documents executed by Lamont to major Blue Chip companies, including Microsoft, Lamont now represents himself as CEO of Iviewit opposite of counsels’ advice, at an address that is not registered to any company Lamont claims to be employed as CEO by. 

August 05, 2009 Lamont Letter to Microsoft

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20090805%20Lamont%20Illegal%20Letter%20to%20Microsoft.pdf

§  Lamont further now claims such executive role in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit, claiming he is CEO of Iviewit, when no Board has ever put him in that position and when he is fully cognizant that he has no authority legally to represent Iviewit Shareholders.  Lamont even attempts to represent Iviewit Shareholders and Companies currently in Federal Court, while not having ever passed the bar to practice law and therefore precluding him from representing others in court.  Again, cause for further investigation of Lamont.

February 09, 2009 Lamont Court Filing

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20Lamont%20Attempt%20to%20Quash%20Bernstein%20Motion.pdf

The SEC should note here that while the document claims service on February 09, 2008, it appears executed February 09, 2009.  Whereby the SEC should also note that Lamont does not represent himself individually in the Lawsuit but instead only acts on behalf of Iviewit Shareholders, of which he has no authorization from Iviewit Shareholders or any Iviewit Board of Directors to act on their behalf. 

Finally, at the company Digital Factory that Lamont lists as one of his former employers, in his resume previously exhibited herein, one of the company employees later disclosed that Lamont had been in stock trouble for securities fraud with the board of that company, of course Lamont’s resume failed to disclose this material fact.

·         December 31, 2001 – Letter from Brunelas to Greg B. Thagard (“Thagard”) ~ Vice President Advanced Technology Technical Operations at Warner Bros.  The letter is regarding Thagard’s acceptance of an Iviewit Advisory Board Position.  Later both Thagard and Colter would receive Iviewit Stock options for their Board roles with approval of Warner Bros. and Sony executives.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20011231%20Brunelas%20to%20Thagard%20Regarding%20Joining%20Iviewit%20Advisory%20Board.pdf

·         January 07, 2002 ~ Letters by Lamont regarding his meeting with Rubenstein regarding Warner Bros et al.  Rubenstein presented the exhibited document in draft form at his deposition, read it at the deposition and then dodged questions regarding why his name is referenced in relation to opinions he gave to Warner Bros et al. after denying he knew anything about Iviewit or the patents.  The letter wholly contradicts his prior denial of knowing of the Iviewit inventions or Eliot Bernstein, contradicting his sworn deposition statements and sworn letters to Judge Jorge Labarga, constituting multiple instances of perjury and more.

January 07, 2002 Lamont letters to Rubenstein

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2006%2003%20Iviewit%20Rebuttal%20to%20Wheeler%202nd%20Response_Final.pdf

Pages 19-23

November 20, 2002 Rubenstein Deposition and Deposition Exhibits

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Depositions%20BOOKMARKED%20SEARCHABLE%20with%20hyperlink%20comments.pdf

Pages 1-100, the exhibits attached to the deposition of Rubenstein show Rubenstein’s denials to the court of knowledge of Iviewit and even claiming he was being harassed, as he knew nothing, which in deposition his statements become clear as wholly perjurious.

·         January 14, 2002   Warner Bros. employee Colter’s internal Warner Bros. document containing an Admission of Use of Iviewit Proprietary Processes and Violation of NON-DISCLOSURE agreements by many Warner Bros et al. employees.  The letter also provides affirmation that Rubenstein (MPEGLA LLC Patent Counsel, former Iviewit Proskauer Rose Patent Counsel, Warner Bros. counsel and Iviewit Shareholder) opined favorably to Warner Bros.  The document again directly refutes Rubenstein’s statements in deposition and written communications to the Labarga court that he did not opine or even know of the Iviewit inventions.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2002%2001%2015%20AOLTW%20RUBENSTEIN%20OPINION%20comments.pdf  

·         February 17, 2002 – Eliot Bernstein letter to Brunelas regarding Smith’s sudden request to have Rubenstein of Proskauer speak to him to re-opine on his former statements, already exhibited herein, regarding the efficacy and novelty of the patents.  Rubenstein was acting Patent Counsel to Iviewit as indicated in the exhibited Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer billed to author and distribute to Iviewit potential investors.  The links below provide information on Rubenstein’s position as an Iviewit Board member and Iviewit Patent Counsel despite his statements to the contrary.  At the time Smith requested to speak with Rubenstein to restate his opinions, Iviewit already terminated Proskauer and Rubenstein and investigations were already underway regarding the patent thefts and more.

February 17, 2002 Letter from Eliot Bernstein to Brunelas.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020117%20Bernstein%20letter%20to%20Brunelas%20Regarding%20Smith%20response%20to%20Colter%20to%20talk%20with%20Rubenstein%20Poskauer.pdf

January 2001 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum, whereby the SEC should note here that Rubenstein is listed both as Iviewit Patent Counsel and an Iviewit Advisory Board member.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Wachovia%20Private%20Placement%20Memorandum%20Bookmarked.pdf

Page 4 – “Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio - Mr. Rubenstein is the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool.

Page 16 - “Strong and Experienced Board of Directors and Advisory Board.  iviewit’s Board of Directors and Advisors consist of several well-established individuals from the technology, entertainment, and financial community. Directors have extensive backgrounds with top-tier firms such as Goldman Sachs, Kidder Peabody, and McKinsey & Co. Crossbow Ventures has provided $3.0 million in funding and sits on the Board.  Technology and entertainment guidance comes from a partner at Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway & Wertheimer and from Kenneth Rubenstein, the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool. 

Additionally on Page 16 - “The Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio. The Company’s strategy is to establish market precedence through licensing of trade secrets and know-how.

Page 38 – ADVISORY BOARD SECTION “Kenneth Rubenstein Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP.  Mr. Rubenstein is a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and is the patent attorney for iviewit. He is a registered patent attorney before the US. Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Rubenstein counsels his clients with respect to the validity and infringement of competitors’ patents, as well as prosecutes patent applications. For the past several years he has worked on the formation of a patent pool, for MPEG-2 technology, involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies. He is also a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. Mr. Rubenstein received his law degree, cum laude, from New York Law School and his Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he also graduated with a B.S. Degree.

o   The SEC should note here that Rubenstein’s attempt to claim he never heard of Iviewit, including at his deposition, allegedly is due to the massive conflicts of interest that Rubenstein had.  If Rubenstein were patent counsel to Iviewit and simultaneously counsel to Warner Bros et al. when he originally opined to Colter, without conflict waivers or disclosure, this obviously would have violated attorney conduct codes and law.  Additionally, a false statement in a Private Placement Memorandum violates securities laws.

Additionally, Rubenstein is conflicted with Iviewit his client and the patent pooling scheme and artifice to fraud inventors he has created, MPEGLA LLC, where again he acted as counsel and founder of MPEGLA LLC while also patent counsel to Iviewit, no conflict waivers were gained to protect Iviewit.  The conflict here is again obvious where the Iviewit technologies were the single greatest threat to his pools as Iviewit has the dominant technology, which without, the MPEG license would be worthless.  The SEC should note that Rubenstein initially misrepresented himself and Joao as Proskauer Partners to Iviewit, when prior to learning of my inventions they were both with Meltzer.  Rubenstein is counsel and sole patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC now one of the largest infringers of the Iviewit technologies, licensing Warner Bros et al. and thousands of others.

Proskauer, after learning of my technologies value, estimated at a trillion dollars to “priceless” by leading engineers at Real 3D, Inc. and without a patent department at the time in 1998, then rushed to acquire Rubenstein and his Meltzer patent group and control and monetization of the MPEGLA LLC pools.  When the acquisition was complete, Proskauer, my former patent counsel, directly began inuring benefits from the stolen technologies via their new client MPEGLA LLC in their new Intellectual Property department created after learning of my inventions now headed by Rubenstein and other Meltzer partners. 

MPEGLA has now tied and bundled my inventions to their pools licensing schemes, converting the royalties from the technologies from Iviewit and through other anticompetitive tactics have kept Iviewit from market in classic RICO and ANTITRUST violations, including violations of Sherman and Clayton, as further defined in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit exhibited already herein.

o   The SEC should note here that Warner Bros et al. and many of those involved directly in these matters are also involved in DVD patent pooling schemes, including but not limited to, DVD6C Patent Pool. 

http://www.dvd6cla.com/offer_080904_New.html “On behalf of the DVD6C Licensing Group (DVD6C), we are pleased to offer your company a portfolio license that covers essential patents for certain DVD formats and +R/+RW Disc formats. The members of DVD6C — Hitachi Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd (Panasonic), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC) and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. — collectively own hundreds of essential patents for these DVD formats and +R/+RW Disc formats.”

o   Whereby, similar to MPEGLA LLC’s illegal use of my technologies, DVD6C has similarly tied and bundled my technologies to their pools licenses, excluding me from royalties and then inuring royalties from others from my technologies directly from their membership position in the pool.

o   The SEC should note that the only Meltzer Intellectual Property attorney not to transfer to Proskauer at the time of acquisition was a one Raymond Joao, who initially with Rubenstein was represented as a Proskauer partner and who took initial patent disclosures with Rubenstein.  In 1999-2000, based on early evidence surfacing, Joao allegedly was putting patents into his own name while sabotaging the Iviewit patents.  Upon leaving Iviewit, Joao claimed publically that he had 90+ patents in his name and then went to work for Marc S. Dreier, recently prosecuted and convicted by the SEC for an alleged Ponzi scheme, as further evidenced and discussed later herein.

·         February 08, 2002 – Lamont letter to John D. Calkins (“Calkins”) ~ Senior Vice President New Media Business Development of Warner Bros., regarding stock issued to Warner Bros. employees Colter and Thagard for Advisory Board roles they accepted and also regarding their about face and breach of contracts.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020208%20Lamont%20to%20Calkins%20Warner%20Bros%20Re%20Colter%20and%20Thagard%20Advisory%20Board%20Stock.pdf

·         February 20, 2002 – Calkins Letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.  The SEC should note that opposite of Calkins’ claims in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record; it is instead Calkins and Smith attempting to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter opposite of the facts.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020220%20Calkins%20Letter%20to%20Lamont%20Warner%20Bros%20Wayne%20Smith.pdf

·         February 27, 2002 – Lamont to Calkins about Warner Bros. Breach of Contracts, the SEC should note that while Lamont relies on the NDA, the February 15, 2001 SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, illustrated above, also has strong language about IP rights concerning the Iviewit technologies that also are violated.  Also, take note that at this time in 2002, Warner Bros et al. knew of the breaches and formally were notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches, therefore they should have begun accounting for and disclosing the IP Liabilities at this time in their accounting reports, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020227%20Lamont%20to%20Calkins%20Warner%20Bros%20Breach%20more.pdf

·         March 05, 2002 – Smith letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020305%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Letter%20to%20Lamont%20Calkins.pdf

·         November 20, 2002 - April 15, 2002 Letter by Lamont to Rubenstein Regarding Conversations with Warner Bros et al. presented to Rubenstein at his November 20, 2002 Deposition as already discussed herein.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Kenneth%20Rubenstein%20Deposition%20with%20Exhibits%20CERT.pdf

Pages 3-9

o   Please note that the correspondence exhibited above refers to a notification issued to Warner Bros. at that time, which provided Warner Bros et al. further notice at that time that Cease and Desist letters and threatened litigation would be forthcoming regarding the technology infringements.  Warner Bros et al. already was given notice of Breach of Contracts regarding the Intellectual Properties in prior communiqués exhibited and these letters certainly cite specific liabilities Warner was aware of going forward.

Liabilities exist for Warner Bros et al. for their involvement in the alleged criminal RICO and ANTITRUST activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of investing $25 Million Dollars of capital to my companies.  When doing their due diligence on a $12 Million Dollar Private Placement with Wachovia Securities, corporate and intellectual property frauds were uncovered, including discoveries by Smith regarding the Proskauer/Rubenstein/Joao filed patents and Calkins discovered initial evidence of corporate and bankruptcy frauds.  At that time, Warner Bros et al. counsel, including Smith, employees and personnel became aware of frauds relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional information regarding similar corporate frauds was also being unearthed at that time in an audit being conducted by Arthur Andersen (“Andersen”) which will be discussed further herein.  This information of what Smith and Calkin’s had discovered was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins as rational for not going forward on the Private Placement investment. 

Colter relayed that Warner Bros et al. uncovered fraud, including fraudulent statements made by Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner, former Iviewit counsel, regarding statements made in the Wachovia Private Placement whereby the bankruptcy and lawsuits were not disclosed that were later discovered.  The Private Placement Memorandum completed by, billed for and circulated to potential Iviewit investors, including Warner Bros et al., by Proskauer.  The Fraudulent statements by counsel and others contained in the Wachovia Private Placement, distributed for capital investment is cause for further SEC investigations of these criminal and SEC violations.  Further questions arise as to Wachovia’s actions once they too were aware of the Fraud. 

Per Colter, Warner Bros et al. and Smith uncovered Intellectual Property Frauds involving fraudulent oaths to the US Patent Office and Worldwide Patent Authorities, which has in part led to suspension of my Intellectual Properties by the US Patent Commissioner pending investigations by the US Patent Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  This series of events led to further uncovering Patent Fraud by my former counsel Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer and others that are subject to several state, federal and international ongoing investigations and legal actions. 

Investigations now include one by Harry I. Moatz (“Moatz”), Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office – Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”), charged with oversight of the Federal Patent Bar and patent attorney criminal issues.  Moatz confirmed that W. Palm Beach FBI Special Agent, Stephen Lucchesi had joined his investigation of FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE allegedly committed by attorneys registered with the Federal Patent Bar. 

Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office that resulted in the exhibited herein patent suspensions.  Moatz assembled a team of Patent Office Officials to aid me in getting the Intellectual Properties ready for suspension while investigations proceeded, as he removed all prior counsel from access to the IP.  Amazingly, the patent office initial information which led to suspension proved that materially false information on the patents was not only given to the US Patent Office but that similar false information was given by Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer to Wachovia Securities for inclusion into the Private Placement Memorandum.

Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by counsel Proskauer.  Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO and ANTITRUST crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement, further false statements in a securities document.  At the time, I retained independent counsel, Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire to investigate the corporate and patent fraud allegations and it was confirmed that there was a bankruptcy filing and lawsuit that were not disclosed to Wachovia or Iviewit’s Board and Management that were not part of the conspiratorial efforts. 

It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer and had stolen Intellectual Properties in them, this was learned from information discovered directly from the US Patent Office OED Investigations.  Whereby, Arthur Andersen on or about this time, while auditing the Iviewit companies for the largest investor Crossbow Ventures of West Palm Beach Florida, whose investment funds were two-thirds SBA SBIC funds, found identical and similarly named companies to the Iviewit companies.  The Fraud involving the stolen Small Business Administration Funds is under ongoing investigation with the SBA Inspector General’s office, the SEC through actions involving the Boca Raton Police Department (“Boca PD”) to be discussed in detail herein and other investigators. 

Per Colter, Smith discovered Fraud involving Kenneth Rubenstein, a Proskauer Rose law firm partner and sole patent evaluator for one of the largest infringers and criminal suspects in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and this was the supposed reason he want Rubenstein to re-opine.  The SEC should note here that in addition to the US Patent Office OED investigation of Rubenstein, Rubenstein also is under investigation with other attorneys, including Joao, all ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of Five Justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department. 

Investigations ordered for “Conflicts of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety” when a Proskauer partner, Steven C. Krane, violated public office rules at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee.  Krane caught handling Iviewit/Proskauer complaints, in order to block the complaints against his partner Rubenstein and his firm Proskauer, concealing the massive conflict he had as an Officer of the First Department Disciplinary Committee and other conflicts from other ethical public office positions he maintains in New York, while remaining a Proskauer partner. 

After discovery of the alleged Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, Iviewit learned later that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros., was now working with Rubenstein who was Iviewit’s former IP counsel, MPEGLA counsel and Warner Bros. counsel.  Whereby, upon Smith’s request for Rubenstein to re-opine, Rubenstein claimed he was conflicted with Warner Bros. et al. and Iviewit and therefore could not opine, including even to reiterate his prior opinion, as already evidenced herein.  Whereby Warner Bros. et al. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of the Binding Signed Agreements.  The DVD6C, MPEGLA LLC and other patent pooling schemes, where Warner Bros. and Proskauer are major participants, for example in the DVD6C pool which are managed and monetized by Warner Bros., Proskauer and Rubenstein.  The pooling schemes are alleged to be merely artifices to STEAL INVENTIONS FROM INVENTORS in violation of multiple Antitrust laws and have illegally precluded me from market in classic RICO and ANTITRUST activities, including death threats and a car bomb.

 “The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc (BD) FAQ: X. Copying Deterrents, Content Protection, and Intellectual Property”  by Hugh Bennett - August 28, 2006 EMediaLive @  http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11760

 
“On Oct. 20, 2009, One-Blue, LLC issued a call for patents with their essentiality to BD products sold in the United States to be evaluated by Proskauer, Rose LLP (an international law firm that performs similar determinations for MPEG LA, DVD6C and 4C). An initial meeting of essential patent holders is planned for Nov. 6, 2009 in Japan. However, it is far from clear how successful this effort will be with respect to its ultimate participants as well as the scope and terms of any possibly consensual programs.”

and

“Seeking to avoid the complexities of DVD’s multi-agent system (DVD6C, 4C, 3C, 1C, etc.), MPEG LA began working in 2005 with BD’s multiple stakeholders to establish itself a one-stop essential Blu-ray patent licensing authority. Those who participated in this effort included: CyberLink, Dell, Disney, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi, Philips Electronics, LG Electronics, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung, Sanyo, Sharp, Sonic Solutions, Sony, TDK, Victor Company of Japan (JVC) and Warner Home Video.”

The Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in and inuring benefit from are also using the technologies in violation of Signed and Binding Contracts and Licensing Agreements, admittedly.  Yet, since that time Warner Bros. have also excluded Iviewit from market tying and bundling the technologies in their licensing schemes, again in classic RICO and ANTITRUST activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 years of knowing infringement and the Massive Liabilities to Shareholders that mounts daily.

2009-2010 Recent Communications with Warner Bros et al.

 

The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between the prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. communications and contracts, that during the gap I was nevertheless actively pursuing my rights contrary to Smith’s claim that nothing has been done.  Factually, I have given similar information to several state, federal and international investigators, House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, many state and federal courts and more over the last several years.  During the gap in time, I was also forced to flee my home several times for my family’s safety, including from death threats from Mr. Brian Utley on behalf of the law firms Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner and then from actual Attempted Murder of my family.  Attempted Murder through a Car Bombing of my family minivan in Del Ray Beach, FL., images of the Car Bombing can be found on the www.iviewit.tv homepage.

So Powerful it Blew Up Three Cars Next to It, Where's the Hood?
So Powerful it Blew Up Three Cars Next to It, Where’s the Hood?

 

 

 

 

 

 

master4

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is where the kids would have been!
That is where the kids would have been

·        March 17, 2009 ~ Hall and I left a message for John Rogovin (“Rogovin”) ~ Executive Vice President and General Counsel @ Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. with his assistant Ginger Tipton (“Tipton”) to arrange a business meeting to discuss the lawsuit liabilities, patent infringement liabilities, FASB NO. 5 accounting liabilities and regulatory issues that would likely result in Massive Shareholder Liabilities if not quelled, if possible.

 

·         April 23, 2009 ~ Hall and I left a second message for Rogovin with assistant Tipton, as the March 17, 2009 call was not returned although Tipton was aware that urgent time frames were involved.

·         April 28, 2009 ~ Hall and I spoke to Rogovin’s office that referred us to Smith.  The referral to Smith coming despite his conflicts resulting from his previous involvement in the alleged fraud, the fact that he is a central witness in the matters and the fact that as a lawyer he has multiple legal conflicts of interest, as well as, corporate conflicts in handling the matters he is central too.  Yet, these conflicts would not matter unless Smith directly handled the matters, which he then did.

·         April 30, 2009 ~ Bernstein spoke to Smith’s assistant Yolanda who claimed that Smith was now tied up in litigation for two weeks and that he would get back with an answer shortly.  This delay was despite pressing the need with Yolanda for urgent action on Smith’s part due to the MASSIVE Shareholder liabilities and the need for a twenty-four hour response.

·         May 28, 2009 ~ Time Warner Inc. Announces Plan to Separate AOL

http://bx.businessweek.com/america-online/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedeal.com%2Fcorporatedealmaker%2F2009%2F05%2Ftime_warner_aol_timeline.php

o   The SEC should note the timing of this announcement with the delays in response by Warner Bros et al.’s Smith to the Iviewit notice of IP infringement liabilities and their involvement in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.

o   The SEC should instantly ascertain if Warner Bros et al. notified Shareholders and Auditors during these corporate restructurings of the impending and absolute liabilities, to determine if Shareholders were formally noticed of the massive Twelve Count Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit liability and additional patent infringement liabilities.  Further, the SEC must determine if full disclosure by Counsel was concealed, including but not limited to, Smith and Rogovin.  Finally, the question further arises of if the liabilities were properly accounted for in the Audited Financials for the separation transactions, where it does not appear to have been. 

Obviously, if these material facts regarding massive liabilities were omitted from financial reporting, Shareholders would have Rescissory Rights from the securities fraud by the Officers.  As evidenced in the following series of communications, not only is counsel notified and fails to disclose the liabilities but Officers, Directors and Auditors of the companies when contacted regarding the liabilities, all fail to handle the issues as fiducially required by law.

·         October 07, 2009 ~ Eliot Bernstein letter to Smith regarding setting up meeting to discuss matters that could have Catastrophic effect on the Shareholders.  Smith already advised by Tipton, per confirmation with Tipton, of the Time Sensitive Nature and the seriousness of the liabilities in relation to their Shareholders.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091007%20Eliot%20Bernstein%20letter%20to%20Wayne%20Smith%20re%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL%20meeting%20request.pdf

·         November 23, 2009 ~ Hall spoke directly with Smith, who claimed to Hall that he was not the best person to handle the matters but that he instead was assembling a team from Warner Bros et al. to discuss the matters and would get back to Hall.  Yet, instead of putting a team together, Smith continued handling the matters despite the multiple conflicts.

·         November 30, 2009 ~ Hall sent a letter to Smith reviewing their call @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20091201%20Wayne%20Smith%20Fax%20Email%20Demand%20Receipt%20of%20Kevin%20Hall%20Confirmation%20Letter.pdf

·         December 02, 2009 ~ Smith response to Hall request for meeting @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091202%20Wayne%20Smith%20Response%20Warner%20Bros%20to%20Iviewit%20letter%2012-2-09.pdf

o   It should be noted by the SEC here, that the above linked exhibit has two attachments from February and March 2002.  Whereby, despite the previously exhibited evidence herein, including but not limited to, Signed NDA’s, Admission of Use and Violation of NDA’s by a Warner Bros. employee and a SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, the letter and the attached letters all attempt to deny these material incontestable facts, facts omitted in annual reports as well.

·         December 09, 2009 ~ AOL Time Warner completes split.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/8403302.stm

·         December 18, 2009 ~ Hall and Bernstein response to December 02, 2009 Warner Bros. letter @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091218%20FINAL%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Demand%20Letter36889%20SIGNED%20KRHEIB%20fax.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091218%20FINAL%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Demand%20Letter%20Cover%20Email.pdf

·         December 23, 2009 ~ Warner Bros. Letter from Smith to Iviewit and Bernstein.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091223%20Warner%20Bros%20Wayne%20Smith%20to%20Bernstein%20Response.pdf

o   Note that in this letter Smith claims that,

 “Your time-barred claims hinge almost entirely on an internal email written by David Colter on January 15, 2002 - an email he subsequently disavowed and admitted that he had written (and improperly provided you with a copy) only as a personal favor to you.” 

This statement attempts to deny that liability claims were based on Multiple Signed NDA’s, Admission of Use by Warner Employees, Admission of Violation of NDA’s by Warner Bros. employees, a SIGNED LICENSING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, correspondences and notices of an ongoing Federal Lawsuit, etc.  The SEC should not that in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit both Smith and Calkins are central witnesses and actors directly involved, again conflicting Smith’s involvement in the matter. 

Note that Smith is a licensed and practicing attorney and therefore has additional conflicts of interest and ethical violations under the Attorney Conduct Code, in addition to the Corporate Conflicts of Interest in handling the matters, again where he is directly involved in the alleged crimes described herein.

·         December 29, 2009 ~ Hall and I, unclear if Smith had notified Senior Executives and Auditors or concealed the matters in an attempt to bury them despite our letters demand for him to copy all companies Executives, Board, Counsel and Auditors, contacted Warner Bros et al. Officers, Directors and Auditors directly.  The first AOL Inc. spokesperson, returning our call to determine if Smith had contacted them was a one Jerry McKinley (“McKinley”) ~ Sr. Liaison of Executive Escalation at AOL Inc. calling to follow up on earlier messages to Tim Armstrong (“Armstrong”) ~ Chairman and CEO of AOL Inc. and others.  A follow up letter to our call with McKinley can be found  @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091231%20Jerry%20McKinley%20AOL%20Inc%20letter%20Re%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20response.pdf

o   McKinley was then given critical documents expressing the urgent nature of these matters and McKinley was to get back to Hall and me instantly with confirmation that the named Executives, Officers and Auditors from the companies had received the URGENT TIME SENSITIVE documents regarding the liabilities.  McKinley then took a vacation the next day and was unavailable to answer calls despite knowing that the documents had a 24-hour period before we would be notifying the SEC and others of the liabilities, if resolution could not be achieved through sound business discussions and practices. 

·         December 29, 2009 ~ Hall and Bernstein calls to Time Warner Inc. and Warner Bros. executives.

o   Further, I hereby complain that such recent elusive conduct involves the CEO, CFO and General Counsel at Time Warner, Inc., even hiding and dodging professional phone calls, in fact wholly ignoring them, simply to confirm messages and communications were received and seeking responsibly to address the mass of liabilities described herein.  Instead, quite shockingly, both Hall and I were intentionally passed along to extensions whereby the employees refused to give their names and several times just hung up on us.  Then, unidentified employees transferred us to Security personnel, personnel who would claim to be proper members of the company to receive and deliver messages to the Senior Executives regarding the massive potential Shareholder liabilities, yet they too would offer no confirmation of the delivery of the matters to the Executives and several refused to give their proper names or oversight. 

o   Security for Time Warner instead then took messages with a promise only to deliver the message and since there has been absolutely no call back from Senior Management, Counsel, Outside Counsel or an Auditor since those calls, we presume that avoidance equals concealment.  This stands as additional cause for the SEC to investigate and find out more information regarding the failure to return these calls and address liabilities properly by either Officers, Directors, Auditors, Outside Counsel, etc. and further determine if they have reported the liabilities their offices have been notified about to Auditors and Shareholders.

·         January 06, 2010 ~ Phone conversation with Day

o   Most amazingly, Wednesday Jan. 6, 2010, I had a Direct Phone conversation with Christopher Day (“Day”) who claimed to be an Assistant General Counsel at AOL, Inc.  The call also involved my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq.  Mr. Day was calling back after Hall and I left urgent voicemails for AOL CEO & COB Armstrong, after McKinley failed to return calls as promised.  Mr. Day apparently is also Licensing and Patent counsel for AOL Inc., yet it was unclear on whose behalf Day was acting, as we had left messages for several key officers, including Armstrong and General Counsel Ira Parker (“Parker”) and Day refused to tell us.

o   Day also refused to tell us not only who sent him the information and gave him orders to call us back but also refused to disclose what documentation he was mysteriously and anonymously sent and referring to, making it impossible to even confirm the documents he referenced receiving.

o   This was most bizarre conduct from an alleged Assistant General Counsel who refused to describe how, who or why the documents and business matters came to him.  Yet, it appeared that Day was returning my calls to CEO Armstrong at AOL and stated that he was a direct report to the key management persons we were attempting to reach and assuming liability for the matters. 

o   Efforts to avoid the liabilities involve actual dodging and hiding by Senior Executives, Officers and Directors from these matters, including but not limited to, the brand new CEO Armstrong and General Counsel at AOL Inc., Parker.  Upon leaving messages for Ira Parker, his assistant returned the call and stated that Parker was on vacation, could not be disturbed despite the PRIORITY situation and would return the call upon his return.  As of this date, I have received no call back from Parker; perhaps he is on extended vacation.

·         January 07, 2010 ~ Letter out to AOL Management Regarding Evasive Tactics of Management from Shareholder Liabilities.

o   Sent to:  Tim Armstrong ~ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer @ AOL Inc. ( tim.armstrong@corp.aol.com );  Artie Minson ~ Chief Financial Officer @ AOL Inc. ( arthur.minson@corp.aol.com );  Jerry McKinley @ AOL Inc. ( mackinleyj@aol.com ); Ira Parker ~ General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development @ AOL Inc ( ira.parker@corp.aol.com ); Christopher Day ~ Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing @ AOL Inc ( christopherday@corp.aol.com )

January 07, 2010 Letter to CEO, Armstrong at AOL Inc. @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100110%20Kevin%20Hall%20Letter%20sent%20to%20Tim%20Armstrong%20AOL%20re%20Christopher%20Day%20calls%20to%20eib.pdf

·         January 08, 2010 ~ Additional Offer made to AOL Inc. CEO Armstrong thru Assistant General Counsel Christopher Day and Summarizing Notes of Jan. 6, 2010 conversation @

January 08, 2010 Letter of Hall to Bernstein copied to Tim Armstrong, CEO at AOL Inc. and others.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100108%20Letter%20to%20Tim%20Armstrong%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

·         January 2010 ~ Calls were again placed to CEO Armstrong and Day by Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein’s Counsel, Marc R. Garber, Esq. (“Garber”) of Flaster Greenberg PC (“Flaster”), Kevin Hall, Esq. and Eliot Bernstein.  Counsel Garber left the messages with his personal and business phone numbers for AOL Counsel, Officers, Directors or Auditors to return his call.  Again, not even a return call from AOL to Iviewit Counsel Garber, whereby the failure of Warner Bros. et al. to return calls to our Counsel should send additional red flags to the SEC.  This failure to return calls to Counsel Garber by Warner Bros. et al. counsel and executives regarding matters as serious as this to Shareholders is unheard of, indicating further cause for the SEC to investigate all named parties herein and in the attached Exhibit 1.  Investigations by the SEC should include all personal and corporate stock transactions from1999 to Present for all of these executives, including the recent corporate splits.

o   Counsel Garber of Flaster left messages with both Armstrong and Day, giving them both a chance to return the calls, as it was already established that Armstrong had direct actual and constructive receipt of correspondences via email and therefore direct knowledge of the impending liabilities to AOL, Inc.  The calls to contact Counsel Garber were not returned as of this date, leading to the filing of this Formal Complaint against Warner Bros et al.  The failure of Warner Bros et al. to resolve the issues through sound business discussions and licensing of the technologies with the true and proper inventors, and in fact, instead exhibiting a continued pattern attempting to conceal the liabilities from Shareholders and others with potential liabilities, through establishing materially false record of fact, while transacting volumes of individual and corporate securities, prompted this action to the SEC and others addressed herein.

The timeline and supplementary evidence herein should establish for the SEC and others addressed herein that Smith’s recent claim in his December 23, 2009 communication, already exhibited herein, claiming, “Your time-barred claims hinge almost entirely on an internal email written by David Colter on January 15, 2002 - an email he subsequently disavowed and admitted that he had written (and improperly provided you with a copy) only as a personal favor to you” is both False and Misleading.  False and Misleading in light of the substantial evidence refuting this claim presented and exhibited herein regarding the Binding Contractual relations between Warner Bros et al. and Iviewit.  Smith’s statements attempt to dismiss the liabilities as based on a single letter from a Warner Bros. employee and that the claims are somehow time barred. 

The SEC and other investigators addressed herein however are presented with a far more complete and truthful picture of the long and contractual relationship between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. A relationship based on thousands of pages of documented evidence and legal binding contracts, many with Smith center stage.  The need to deny the extensively documented and binding contractual relationship that Smith is aware of obviously is an effort to cover up why he and Warner Bros et al. have failed properly to report to Shareholders, Regulators and Auditors these material facts.  Facts that will likely result in Catastrophic Liabilities triggering Rescissory Rights of Shareholders due to fraud, concealment, securities fraud and other violations of law.

The SEC should also note that there are no time-barred claims on patent infringement, especially where the patents remain suspended by the US Patent Office and that the matter of time for Iviewit to file actions for infringement will remain open for Twenty years from the time the patents issue and from time of filing in 1998-2001.

FASB No. 5 Accounting Issues regarding the reporting of litigation liabilities and Intellectual Property infringement liabilities

 

Our intent in reaching out to Warner Bros et al. starting in March 2009, prior to filing this Formal Complaint, in conjunction and addition to other Federal complaints and actions, was to find out if Liabilities to Warner Bros. et al. Shareholders could be eliminated with sound business and licensing practices with the true and proper inventors of the technologies.  Also, contact was made due to the fact that Warner Bros. and certain employees of Warner Bros. initially did the right thing and licensed the technologies and signed confidentialities, licensing agreements, etc. and we were offering them an opportunity to explain the about face in 2002 and breaches of those binding contracts, to determine if remedy could be made. 

Knowingly infringing on backbone technologies and being involved in Ongoing Litigation would require proper accounting for the Liabilities on financial reports to Shareholders, Auditors, Outside Counsel and Regulators under Financial Accounting Standards Board  (“FASB”) rules and securities law, including but not limited to the following FASB rules,

FASB

For the purpose of this Statement, a contingency is defined as an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible gain (hereinafter a “gain contingency”) or loss (hereinafter a “loss contingency”) to an enterprise that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. Resolution of the uncertainty may confirm the acquisition of an asset or the reduction of a liability or the loss or impairment of an asset or the incurrence of a liability.

4. Examples of loss contingencies include:
e. Pending or threatened litigation.
f. Actual or possible claims and assessments.

Litigation, Claims, and Assessments

The following factors, among others, must be considered in determining whether accrual and/or disclosure is required with respect to pending or threatened litigation and actual or possible claims and assessments:

a. The period in which the underlying cause (i.e., the cause for action) of the pending or threatened litigation or of the actual or possible claim or assessment occurred.
b. The degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome.
c. The ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss.

Please take note of the following FASB language regarding Intellectual Property infringement:

By way of further example, an enterprise may believe there is a possibility that it has infringed on another enterprise’s patent rights, but the enterprise owning the patent rights has not indicated an intention to take any action and has not even indicated an awareness of the possible infringement. In that case, a judgment must first be made as to whether the assertion of a claim is probable. If the judgment is that assertion is not probable, no accrual or disclosure would be required. On the other hand, if the judgment is that assertion is probable, then a second judgment must be made as to the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome. If an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, accrual of a loss is required by paragraph 8. If an unfavorable outcome is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, accrual would not be appropriate, but disclosure would be required by paragraph 10. If an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, disclosure would be required by paragraph 10.

I respectfully direct your focused attention to the following statement, “