A Stunning New Development in the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent Case.
After a Decade of Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc. and AOL seemingly ignoring the Blatant Fraud and Shareholder Liability from violating non-compete agreements and basically disregarding Legally Binding agreements that put Shareholders Liable for Billions... well last week Lorie Coulombe - Executive Director - Time Warner Inc. Investor Relations emails Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies.
And it almost seemed like Warner Bros. was going to actually start "Risk Management" and to come clean with the Massive Shareholder Fraud that They have known about for a Decade... but wait.. then...
Ok well.. Lorie Coulombe - Executive Director - Time Warner Inc. Investor Relations emails Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies Says:
" Dear Mr. Bernstein,
This is to acknowledge that Time Warner Inc. received your email of March 17, 2010 sent to the Investor Relations email address.
In the event of furture correspondence regarding the subject of your email, we request that you contact Mr. Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer of Time Warner, with whom we understand you have already been in contact.
Sincerely,
Lorie Coulombe
Executive Director
Time Warner Inc. Investor Relations
One Time Warner Center
New York, NY 10019
T: 212-484-8972 ""
After this Curtis Lu, Eliot Bernstein and Eliot's Attorney had a Talk..
It is My Understanding that Curtis Lu Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. has spoke with *Iviewit's Eliot Bernstein... apparently some Savvy, Smart Time Warner Inc. , Warner Bros. Investors are calling Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. and asking about their risk with this Iviewit Thing..
and well you see though there are 1200 documents online and the Iviewit Patent was Stolen a Decade ago and is used on pretty much all TV's, Phones, Video Cameras, and much .. MUCH more.. well apparently Curtis Lu did not look into the Evidence, the Agreements, and though Curtil Lu is paid to assess Risk for shareholders and is a Compliance officer ... well Curtis Lu does not seem to know how to Google, to Read Documents and to do his homework in assessing the Billions in Risk to the Shareholders he is Paid to Protect...
So Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. thought he would save himself the time of researching contracts, reading blogs - documents and proof and instead he would just ask One Dumbass Question to Eliot Bernstein - Iviewit owner and one of the Iviewit Technologies Inventors....
Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. asked
"What is My Risk Here" ??????
Years of Stress, Family Threatened, Car Bombed.. and been through hell and some VP calls a decade later and asks... uh .. gee.. mr. bernstein.. uh what is my risk here.. duh..???
Wouldn't you agree that this move, increased the "Exposure" - the "Risk" for Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. ?
I mean for a decade Warner Bros. had managed to simply ignore their blatant non-disclosure of Massive Shareholder Fraud. In this they had seemed to dance around and to avoid legal issues, avoid SEC Complaints and Pretty much Commit Silent Fraud that had, well gone unnoticed by many - MANY shareholders... for nearly a decade...
And in one Dumb Ass Move Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. Publicly Displays, Admits the HUGE Error that Warner Bros. Made, admits that Warner Bros. had ignored it, asks Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies what the risk is for Time Warner Inc. - Warner Bros. and then after this opening of a Dialogue with Iviewit Technologies after nearly a decade ...
well Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. simply disappears.. after Curtis Lu - Time Warner Inc. has a detailed conversation with Eliot Bernstein of Iview Technologies and Fully grasps the Billions in Shareholder Liability and the MAJOR Fraud and Liability to insurance companies and bond holders for not disclosing this liability for a decade.. well then Curtis Lu of Time Warner Inc. Simply Does Nothing..
so Why did Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. initiate a half ass risk management conversation with Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies?
Well so that Curtis Lu could manage the Risk of the Shareholders being Concerned, Mad and all those pesky shareholder questions... you see apparently the Smart Literate Shareholders of Time Warner Inc. , Warner Bros and AOL are VERY Concerned about the millions of dollars of risk and liability that they will have to encure when the Iviewit Financial Bomb drops and .. this will be retroactive..
another words this will be a massive mess and over the last decade.. the Shareholders are calling Curtis Lu and Complaining, they are worried about this Iviewit Thing and what it means to them and to their heirs... and well rightfully so as it is a VERY Big Deal..
The kind of Big Deal that the CEO Jeffrey Bewkes and the VP Curtis Lu can simply brush off and the kind of Big Deal that YOU and your Heirs will pay millions upon millions for..
Curtis Lu can now say... oh yes I have spoke with Mr. Bernstein of Iviewit and I have successful assessed the risk .. no worries Mr. and Mrs. Shareholder all is well..
Now of Course the Share holders have Brains, Can Read and Can think for themselves and easily see that one day all this will come to light as the Truth tends to do that... Jeffrey Bewkes CEO of Time Warner seems to be completely blind as to what is going here..
However the Email from Lorie Coulombe - Executive Director - Time Warner Inc. Investor Relations and the Conversation that Curtis Lu had with Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies and his attorney WELL that pretty much admits that Time Warner Inc. , Warner Bros. knows of this massive fraud and always has... Shareholders need to be aware as you are the ones who will pay the price...
It Seems that Curtis Lu, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel and Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer Time Warner Inc. is soon to be attending a major Compliance Officer meeting.. this would be the perfect opportunity for Curtis Lu of Time Warner Inc. to get his Oh Shit Plan Ready... as NOW the Liability has doubled for the intent, the blatant fraud... and the major Shareholder Corruption has just been admitted to AGAIN...
Time Warner (NYSE:TWX)
SVP, Deputy CG, Chief Compliance Officer
Curtis Lu
Will Be Attending Compliance Week 2010
Check Out the List of People he will be around
http://www.complianceweek.com/page/758/2010-conference-speakers
I wonder if Curtis Lu - Time Warner will Tell any of this folks of the MAJOR Shareholder Fraud he is aware of and Deliberately Keeping from Shareholders?
Links to More on the Iviewit - Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc., Jeffrey Bewkes, Curtis Lu and AOL Connection.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dgvpzjzw_9ghxg4km9
SEC Complaint
http://www.iviewit.tv/
iViewit Website
http://www.deniedpatent.com/
My Blog on the Iviewit Stolen Patent
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/01/letter-from-aol-time-warner-regarding.html
David Colter Emails, John Caulkins Emails, Chuck Dages, and Alan Bell
http://www.deniedpatent.com/search/label/Warner%20Bros.
Warner Bros. Posts on my Iviewit Blog
Links from Iviewit Web Page about Warner Bros.
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/colter%20letter%20to%20Calkins.pdf
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2004%2011%20-%20Rubenstein%20repsonse%20KRANE%20CONFLICT%20AUTHORED%20to%20N.pdf
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/proskauer%20client%20infringers.pdf
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2011%2015%20SC%2004-1078%20IVIEWIT%20REBUTTAL%20TO%20FLORIDA%20BAR%20RESP(1).pdf
SEC CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST AOL, TIME WARNER & WARNER BROS. SHAREHOLDER FRAUD! IVIEWIT PRESS RELEASE
Curtis Lu
Showing posts with label iViewIt Technologies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iViewIt Technologies. Show all posts
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
FBI Coverups, Boca Police Scandals, Major Law Firms Covering Corruption, Enron Collapsing, Attempted Murder, Invention Stolen, Denial of Due Process.
In America only Certain People have rights to Protection from the Law - Most All are just Collateral Damage to Protect Corrupt Attorneys, Judges, DOJ Officials, Corrupt FBI agents, Billionaire Tech Companies, Major Media Companies and Mega Law Firms.
Judical Coverups, Attorneys and Judges Protecting Each Other, Illegal Behavior among judges, attorneys and clerks .. well this is American Justice.. not based in TRUTH or Law but Based in who you know and what your willing to pay them to cover your Dirty Deeds...
"" KernelOfTruth says:
There is a case in which any one of you might be interested. It involves the theft of patents worth at least one trillion dollars, and has already paid out billions in royalties that have never been received by the inventor or the company (with no report of where that much looted money has disappeared).
The reason you may be interested is that it is a Florida case with ties to places in New York, and the inventor seems to have run into problems similar to those discussed by individuals who have posted on the subject of public corruption in the Scott Rothstein case.
The shenanigans are unbelievable, including, but certainly not limited to, a Keystone Cop like investigation by the Boca Raton Police Department and an ostensible Office of the FBI [in West Palm Beach]. How much do you think it cost the taxpayers to set up that [rented FBI] Office, which acted as though an investigation was being run when nothing was done to examine the complicity of lawyers, public officials, and investigating agencies and a car bombing.
If you are interested, you can go to http://www.iviewit.tv and listen to certain testimony relating to the crimes that were allowed to occur through the Courts, both a Civil Division State Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in West Palm Beach, Florida.
If you prefer, you can read certain documents at
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2004%2020%20Iviewit%20Request%20for%20FBI%20IA%20and%20OIG%20investigation%20of%20FBI%20case%20downlow.pdf
The inventor and main person being abused, Eliot L. Bernstein, discusses the matter in the State Hearings held in New York, involving public corruption. One case brought up concerns a Monty Friedkin case, which he says is cloaked as lawyers and law firms acting as a criminal enterprise stealing inventions from inventors.
He identifies William J. Dick of the Foley and Lardner law firm and Brian Utley as working with Christopher Clarke Wheeler to steal inventions from Monte Friedkin, of Diamond Turf Equipment, a Florida corporation.
The criminal enterprise against Mr. Friedkin was explained as Utley (operating as the President of the company) contracting former IBM patent attorney William Dick to write Friedkin’s patents in his name and place them into a company incorporated by Christopher C.Wheeler of Proskauer Rose.
According to [page 15 of] the Complaint found at that web site, a lawyer that had subsequently been convicted in Florida of Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury is identified as the instigator or ringleader. Then, this ringleader, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, is identified as a lawyer with the law firm of Proskauer Rose.
This scam is identified by Eliot Bernstein (in testimony and also by Stephen Lamont in the Complaint) as being perpetrated in a same fashion [as that run against Diamond Turf] when involving his Iviewit Company, wherein certain individuals performed in the enterprise, to walk the patents and intellectual properties [Utley] worked on, out of the business and into a company that these co-adventurers owned, in which the true owner [in this case, one can replace Friedkin with Bernstein] had no interest or idea of it’s existence.
Scroll down to pages 16 - 18 of the 43 page Complaint, and you can read about how both intrinsic and extrinsic fraud were further perpetrated before a Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, in the State of Florida, with what would appear a Circuit Court Judge’s willingness to grant an allowance for continual acts of perjury, intentional fraud, and criminal acts of conversion.
For instance, the Judge [Jorge Labarga] is said to have stated that the prior counsel that the parties did not know or hire had been representing them so that the right to file almost anything in the case had been waived by the counsel that had no authority to file the case or act in the case.
Further on, at page 21 [after explaining the reasons for starting File number 402-2-59-1799-339, on May 13th, 2002, with the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, at the behest of the Long Beach, California FBI], is the explanation “Bernstein, upon discovering further that the companies were involved in a federal bankruptcy in Florida (Case No. 01-33407-BKC-SHF Inv Chap 11 in the Southern District of Florida) and the law suit in civil court in Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit discussed above, both previously unbeknownst to exist by shareholders or management of the legitimate companies, built his case from California and then moved to Florida to the lions den or Labarga’s court and the Bankruptcy Court, believing that justice would be had.
Both actions filed in Florida were instigated by Proskauer Rose and Proskauer Rose referred management Utley, Michael Reale and an entity RYJO, Inc. (“RYJO”).
RYJO a subcontractor under a strategic alliance structured by Proskauer Rose, between Iviewit and Real 3D, Inc. (“R3D”) a client of theirs, R3D owned 70% by Lockheed Martin, 20% by Silicon Graphics Inc., and 10% by Intel, later wholly acquired by Intel and a third party necessary with management to file an involuntary.
With new counsel relieving dirty counsel, those acting without authority, now replaced by counsel retained by the legitimate companies, Bernstein went back to Florida to pursue his rights. It is presumed that once Proskauer Rose to instantly get rid of the evidence of the fraudulent companies but first had a plan to get the stolen intellectual properties out.
Thus, when combined, the billing case that they thought nobody would ever discover was in court and bankruptcy, the companies could do the following:
(i) Proskauer Rose would sue fraudulent companies ABC which harbored the stolen patents with a large unpaid bill
(ii) this would make them the largest creditor and thus entitled in a bankruptcy to majority of the company and the stolen patents and
(iii) with Utley, RYJO and Reale instigating the bankruptcy they would be the remaining benefactors, it would all look clean to the Courts, almost invisible and they would walk off with the stolen assets. They never figured that Bernstein would be tipped off to this in the midst of the process”.
It was related that one of the counsel [Kenneth Rubenstein] “was so brazen that the Court was in his pocket, that he wrote [Judge] Jorge Labarga a sworn statement claiming he never heard of Eliot Bernstein, the Iviewit companies and was being harassed”.
Also related to the case was a declaration of a showing to Warner Brothers of entries with investor H. Wayne Huizenga, in regards to the Iviewit inventions and multiple billings.
The kicker in the last paragraph [on page 18] is the obvious dereliction of duty in regards to what passes for FBI Agents in the network [of the ol’ south Good Ole Boys] and compromised Office of the US Attorney with the Southern District of Florida, when it is written “one asks, why later those same crimes exposed in mass against the government to the West Palm Beach Office of the FBI, were not prosecuted when taken by the FBI to the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with all the other crimes they were apprised of and given evidence in support of and which they then led Iviewit to believe they were investigating until April 17, 2007”.
Page 20 holds a critical piece of information, which is “Another part of the immediate problem was that evidence surfaced of a deal between the fraudulent Iviewit companies and Enron’s Broadband Division, in the now infamous Enron/Blockbuster Deal which due to Enron’s booking of hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of earning it, on a new technology for broadband internet distribution of movies, based on technologies almost stolen from Iviewit which are the true cause of the collapse of Enron.
All evidence of this had to be destroyed by the law firms who had perpetrated the crimes and this may have been the cause of the massive shredding party”.
For a story about the “Specific Involvement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- West Palm Beach Office: January 2003 to March 2007”, scroll down to page 23.
The tale involves accusations regarding lawyers submitting false statements and falsified documents (including to a Court of Law), money made or laundered under the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements, conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety that involved Public Office corruption cases before the Florida Supreme Court, denial of due process and procedure in the Civil Courts as the criminal lawyers legal and political power have been able to position [without disclosure] through conflict to avoid prosecution by infiltrating Public Offices where Complaints have been filed, the infiltration of the attorney discipline process [both in New York and Florida],
..the possibility that the [Democrat-controlled] Proskauer Rose law firm is controlling certain of the Florida Courts and Disciplinary Departments when the New York law firm has one small Office in Boca Raton, cases at the Boca Raton Police Department that were derailed [with the Officer disappearing without Notice],
...the possibility that the [Republican-controlled] Foley and Lardner Law Firm is controlling a certain tier of the Florida Courts and the Governor’s Office when the Wisconsin law firm had virtually no presence in Florida, a subterfuge of a deferral of a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Complaint that falls under another conflict due to the fact that Governor Charlie Crist had appointed [Iviewit’s former patent counsel] Foley and Lardner, special Office positions favorably given to lawyers like George Lemieux [a managing shareholder where the ringleader (Christopher Wheeler) worked in the Fort Lauderdale Office of the Gunster, Yoakley, & Stewart law firm].
The behavior of the President of The Florida Bar [Kelly Overstreet Johnson] who worked for the brother [James Wheeler] of the ringleader lawyer, the infiltration of federal investigations, an FBI Agent [Stephen Lucchesi] who acted as though the problem was one that was civil in nature without need for FBI involvement, Special Agent Joseph Sconzo’s denial that there was any file concerning Iviewit in the FBI’s [rented] West Palm Beach Office.
Special Agent in Charge John McVie’s denial of any history of Iviewit or Eliot Bernstein with any FBI investigation after years of investigation, a non-existent Securities and Exchange Commission investigation jointly run with the Boca Raton Police Department, denial of any oversight responsibilities pertaining to action taken by the FBI by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice [Glenn Fine],
.... the dismissal of a need for an audit when the Small Business Administration is the largest investor and shareholder through SBIC loans, the lack of oversight by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the lack of investigation by the Department of Justice into the Iraqi-style car bombing of the family vehicle belonging to Mr. Bernstein his wife and three children, possible terminations of US Attorneys for political reasons and retirements of Special Agents for political reasons,
... an admittance of no power or authority held by either the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee, harm to international relations through violations of international treatises, the failure of former Commissioner of Patents [John Doll] and his successor Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property [Jon W. Dudas] to follow the law, and possible influence wielded by Michael Grebe [the former Chairman of the Foley and Lardner law firm and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee who is currently under investigation for other violations]
The gist of the Complaint can be boiled down to the request contained on page 22, which is “With the revenues from the technologies converted to their pools and already generating profits in billions of dollars since invention, it would take either a continuous corruption of any legal or prosecutorial agency the complaints went or easier that with a Presidential top down denial of due process and procedure, through various Presidential appointments in key positions to block it top down.
We are asking the DOJ OIG to investigate for any possible connection to election fraud or payola to politicians capable of planting individuals to block Iviewit at each of these agencies”.
Moreover, on page 7 of a succeeding formal request to the Office of Internal Affairs for the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the inventor and President & Founder of Iviewit Technologies, Inc./Iviewit [Iviewit Holdings, Inc.], Eliot Bernstein, further concluded his ordeal and exasperation and concern for others, in his summation: “Please contact me immediately regarding these matters, as I fear for not only the life of my family but those who had volunteered to act as witnesses and others, that presumed they were doing so with the FBI investigating the matters.
I am in grave concern that the FBI has taken no actions to protect a citizen whose life has been threatened repeatedly, whose car has been blown up and confirmed as committed with intent by fire investigators.
A group of citizens who have followed all the rules of making complaints to all the proper authorities, to find that no one is protecting their rights to life, as well as, the rights guaranteed through the Constitution under Article I, Sec 8, Clause 8 pertaining to protection of inventors with the full weight of the Constitution, in the event of just such attempts to steal such inventions and murder inventors.
In fact, in a RICO case the FBI typically offers protection to witnesses against corruption from small or large mobsters when witnesses’ lives may be in danger.
Where a group of citizens have brought allegations of corruption that may yield a Patentgate, with attempted murders already occurring in the US and threats already effectuated against ones life, it is stunning that FBI officers who have been fully apprised of the matters and tendered evidence and witnesses against the accused, have not granted an iota of protection to those who are in danger, all indicating a top down control of the government and its regulatory agencies.
Control by those at the top to aid and abet those alleged to have committed such atrocities, through violation of public offices of these federal and state investigatory agencies. Most disturbing though is that it now appears that no one is protecting the United States and foreign nations from a group of criminals cloaked as lawyers, politicians and judicial members!”. ""
Posted Here
By Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
What Really Collapsed Enron? Well it was a Proskauer Rose Law Firm Scandal, a Foiled Patent Theft. Proskauer Rose Law Attorney Corruption has ruined countless lives, portfolios and has left an amazing path of Destruction.
Can Enron Victims Sue Proskauer Rose Law Firm for their Loss, Suffering and Hardship.. well if they had the TRUTH .. maybe? But wait.. Proskauer Rose controls US Courts, Judges, Attorney Ethics Committees .. so Nevermind...
Judical Coverups, Attorneys and Judges Protecting Each Other, Illegal Behavior among judges, attorneys and clerks .. well this is American Justice.. not based in TRUTH or Law but Based in who you know and what your willing to pay them to cover your Dirty Deeds...
"" KernelOfTruth says:
There is a case in which any one of you might be interested. It involves the theft of patents worth at least one trillion dollars, and has already paid out billions in royalties that have never been received by the inventor or the company (with no report of where that much looted money has disappeared).
The reason you may be interested is that it is a Florida case with ties to places in New York, and the inventor seems to have run into problems similar to those discussed by individuals who have posted on the subject of public corruption in the Scott Rothstein case.
The shenanigans are unbelievable, including, but certainly not limited to, a Keystone Cop like investigation by the Boca Raton Police Department and an ostensible Office of the FBI [in West Palm Beach]. How much do you think it cost the taxpayers to set up that [rented FBI] Office, which acted as though an investigation was being run when nothing was done to examine the complicity of lawyers, public officials, and investigating agencies and a car bombing.
If you are interested, you can go to http://www.iviewit.tv and listen to certain testimony relating to the crimes that were allowed to occur through the Courts, both a Civil Division State Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in West Palm Beach, Florida.
If you prefer, you can read certain documents at
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2004%2020%20Iviewit%20Request%20for%20FBI%20IA%20and%20OIG%20investigation%20of%20FBI%20case%20downlow.pdf
The inventor and main person being abused, Eliot L. Bernstein, discusses the matter in the State Hearings held in New York, involving public corruption. One case brought up concerns a Monty Friedkin case, which he says is cloaked as lawyers and law firms acting as a criminal enterprise stealing inventions from inventors.
He identifies William J. Dick of the Foley and Lardner law firm and Brian Utley as working with Christopher Clarke Wheeler to steal inventions from Monte Friedkin, of Diamond Turf Equipment, a Florida corporation.
The criminal enterprise against Mr. Friedkin was explained as Utley (operating as the President of the company) contracting former IBM patent attorney William Dick to write Friedkin’s patents in his name and place them into a company incorporated by Christopher C.Wheeler of Proskauer Rose.
According to [page 15 of] the Complaint found at that web site, a lawyer that had subsequently been convicted in Florida of Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury is identified as the instigator or ringleader. Then, this ringleader, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, is identified as a lawyer with the law firm of Proskauer Rose.
This scam is identified by Eliot Bernstein (in testimony and also by Stephen Lamont in the Complaint) as being perpetrated in a same fashion [as that run against Diamond Turf] when involving his Iviewit Company, wherein certain individuals performed in the enterprise, to walk the patents and intellectual properties [Utley] worked on, out of the business and into a company that these co-adventurers owned, in which the true owner [in this case, one can replace Friedkin with Bernstein] had no interest or idea of it’s existence.
Scroll down to pages 16 - 18 of the 43 page Complaint, and you can read about how both intrinsic and extrinsic fraud were further perpetrated before a Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, in the State of Florida, with what would appear a Circuit Court Judge’s willingness to grant an allowance for continual acts of perjury, intentional fraud, and criminal acts of conversion.
For instance, the Judge [Jorge Labarga] is said to have stated that the prior counsel that the parties did not know or hire had been representing them so that the right to file almost anything in the case had been waived by the counsel that had no authority to file the case or act in the case.
Further on, at page 21 [after explaining the reasons for starting File number 402-2-59-1799-339, on May 13th, 2002, with the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, at the behest of the Long Beach, California FBI], is the explanation “Bernstein, upon discovering further that the companies were involved in a federal bankruptcy in Florida (Case No. 01-33407-BKC-SHF Inv Chap 11 in the Southern District of Florida) and the law suit in civil court in Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit discussed above, both previously unbeknownst to exist by shareholders or management of the legitimate companies, built his case from California and then moved to Florida to the lions den or Labarga’s court and the Bankruptcy Court, believing that justice would be had.
Both actions filed in Florida were instigated by Proskauer Rose and Proskauer Rose referred management Utley, Michael Reale and an entity RYJO, Inc. (“RYJO”).
RYJO a subcontractor under a strategic alliance structured by Proskauer Rose, between Iviewit and Real 3D, Inc. (“R3D”) a client of theirs, R3D owned 70% by Lockheed Martin, 20% by Silicon Graphics Inc., and 10% by Intel, later wholly acquired by Intel and a third party necessary with management to file an involuntary.
With new counsel relieving dirty counsel, those acting without authority, now replaced by counsel retained by the legitimate companies, Bernstein went back to Florida to pursue his rights. It is presumed that once Proskauer Rose to instantly get rid of the evidence of the fraudulent companies but first had a plan to get the stolen intellectual properties out.
Thus, when combined, the billing case that they thought nobody would ever discover was in court and bankruptcy, the companies could do the following:
(i) Proskauer Rose would sue fraudulent companies ABC which harbored the stolen patents with a large unpaid bill
(ii) this would make them the largest creditor and thus entitled in a bankruptcy to majority of the company and the stolen patents and
(iii) with Utley, RYJO and Reale instigating the bankruptcy they would be the remaining benefactors, it would all look clean to the Courts, almost invisible and they would walk off with the stolen assets. They never figured that Bernstein would be tipped off to this in the midst of the process”.
It was related that one of the counsel [Kenneth Rubenstein] “was so brazen that the Court was in his pocket, that he wrote [Judge] Jorge Labarga a sworn statement claiming he never heard of Eliot Bernstein, the Iviewit companies and was being harassed”.
Also related to the case was a declaration of a showing to Warner Brothers of entries with investor H. Wayne Huizenga, in regards to the Iviewit inventions and multiple billings.
The kicker in the last paragraph [on page 18] is the obvious dereliction of duty in regards to what passes for FBI Agents in the network [of the ol’ south Good Ole Boys] and compromised Office of the US Attorney with the Southern District of Florida, when it is written “one asks, why later those same crimes exposed in mass against the government to the West Palm Beach Office of the FBI, were not prosecuted when taken by the FBI to the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with all the other crimes they were apprised of and given evidence in support of and which they then led Iviewit to believe they were investigating until April 17, 2007”.
Page 20 holds a critical piece of information, which is “Another part of the immediate problem was that evidence surfaced of a deal between the fraudulent Iviewit companies and Enron’s Broadband Division, in the now infamous Enron/Blockbuster Deal which due to Enron’s booking of hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of earning it, on a new technology for broadband internet distribution of movies, based on technologies almost stolen from Iviewit which are the true cause of the collapse of Enron.
All evidence of this had to be destroyed by the law firms who had perpetrated the crimes and this may have been the cause of the massive shredding party”.
For a story about the “Specific Involvement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- West Palm Beach Office: January 2003 to March 2007”, scroll down to page 23.
The tale involves accusations regarding lawyers submitting false statements and falsified documents (including to a Court of Law), money made or laundered under the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements, conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety that involved Public Office corruption cases before the Florida Supreme Court, denial of due process and procedure in the Civil Courts as the criminal lawyers legal and political power have been able to position [without disclosure] through conflict to avoid prosecution by infiltrating Public Offices where Complaints have been filed, the infiltration of the attorney discipline process [both in New York and Florida],
..the possibility that the [Democrat-controlled] Proskauer Rose law firm is controlling certain of the Florida Courts and Disciplinary Departments when the New York law firm has one small Office in Boca Raton, cases at the Boca Raton Police Department that were derailed [with the Officer disappearing without Notice],
...the possibility that the [Republican-controlled] Foley and Lardner Law Firm is controlling a certain tier of the Florida Courts and the Governor’s Office when the Wisconsin law firm had virtually no presence in Florida, a subterfuge of a deferral of a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Complaint that falls under another conflict due to the fact that Governor Charlie Crist had appointed [Iviewit’s former patent counsel] Foley and Lardner, special Office positions favorably given to lawyers like George Lemieux [a managing shareholder where the ringleader (Christopher Wheeler) worked in the Fort Lauderdale Office of the Gunster, Yoakley, & Stewart law firm].
The behavior of the President of The Florida Bar [Kelly Overstreet Johnson] who worked for the brother [James Wheeler] of the ringleader lawyer, the infiltration of federal investigations, an FBI Agent [Stephen Lucchesi] who acted as though the problem was one that was civil in nature without need for FBI involvement, Special Agent Joseph Sconzo’s denial that there was any file concerning Iviewit in the FBI’s [rented] West Palm Beach Office.
Special Agent in Charge John McVie’s denial of any history of Iviewit or Eliot Bernstein with any FBI investigation after years of investigation, a non-existent Securities and Exchange Commission investigation jointly run with the Boca Raton Police Department, denial of any oversight responsibilities pertaining to action taken by the FBI by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice [Glenn Fine],
.... the dismissal of a need for an audit when the Small Business Administration is the largest investor and shareholder through SBIC loans, the lack of oversight by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the lack of investigation by the Department of Justice into the Iraqi-style car bombing of the family vehicle belonging to Mr. Bernstein his wife and three children, possible terminations of US Attorneys for political reasons and retirements of Special Agents for political reasons,
... an admittance of no power or authority held by either the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee, harm to international relations through violations of international treatises, the failure of former Commissioner of Patents [John Doll] and his successor Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property [Jon W. Dudas] to follow the law, and possible influence wielded by Michael Grebe [the former Chairman of the Foley and Lardner law firm and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee who is currently under investigation for other violations]
The gist of the Complaint can be boiled down to the request contained on page 22, which is “With the revenues from the technologies converted to their pools and already generating profits in billions of dollars since invention, it would take either a continuous corruption of any legal or prosecutorial agency the complaints went or easier that with a Presidential top down denial of due process and procedure, through various Presidential appointments in key positions to block it top down.
We are asking the DOJ OIG to investigate for any possible connection to election fraud or payola to politicians capable of planting individuals to block Iviewit at each of these agencies”.
Moreover, on page 7 of a succeeding formal request to the Office of Internal Affairs for the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the inventor and President & Founder of Iviewit Technologies, Inc./Iviewit [Iviewit Holdings, Inc.], Eliot Bernstein, further concluded his ordeal and exasperation and concern for others, in his summation: “Please contact me immediately regarding these matters, as I fear for not only the life of my family but those who had volunteered to act as witnesses and others, that presumed they were doing so with the FBI investigating the matters.
I am in grave concern that the FBI has taken no actions to protect a citizen whose life has been threatened repeatedly, whose car has been blown up and confirmed as committed with intent by fire investigators.
A group of citizens who have followed all the rules of making complaints to all the proper authorities, to find that no one is protecting their rights to life, as well as, the rights guaranteed through the Constitution under Article I, Sec 8, Clause 8 pertaining to protection of inventors with the full weight of the Constitution, in the event of just such attempts to steal such inventions and murder inventors.
In fact, in a RICO case the FBI typically offers protection to witnesses against corruption from small or large mobsters when witnesses’ lives may be in danger.
Where a group of citizens have brought allegations of corruption that may yield a Patentgate, with attempted murders already occurring in the US and threats already effectuated against ones life, it is stunning that FBI officers who have been fully apprised of the matters and tendered evidence and witnesses against the accused, have not granted an iota of protection to those who are in danger, all indicating a top down control of the government and its regulatory agencies.
Control by those at the top to aid and abet those alleged to have committed such atrocities, through violation of public offices of these federal and state investigatory agencies. Most disturbing though is that it now appears that no one is protecting the United States and foreign nations from a group of criminals cloaked as lawyers, politicians and judicial members!”. ""
Posted Here
By Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
What Really Collapsed Enron? Well it was a Proskauer Rose Law Firm Scandal, a Foiled Patent Theft. Proskauer Rose Law Attorney Corruption has ruined countless lives, portfolios and has left an amazing path of Destruction.
Can Enron Victims Sue Proskauer Rose Law Firm for their Loss, Suffering and Hardship.. well if they had the TRUTH .. maybe? But wait.. Proskauer Rose controls US Courts, Judges, Attorney Ethics Committees .. so Nevermind...
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Top Judge Sets Liberal Course for New York - Jonathan Lippman - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose LLP - Iviewit Technologies - Connections and Affiliations
"" Gov. David A. Paterson nominated Jonathan Lippman to head the New York Court of Appeals in January 2009, making him the chief judge of the state.
The choice was a gamble: The judge, a longtime court administrator, did not have a long history of deciding cases, and there was almost no record of his political views.
Judge Jonathan Lippman has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.
Now, a year in, the parameters of the Lippman court are coming into focus. He has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.
To get the rulings he wants, the decisions show, the new chief judge has built alliances case by case with each of the four judges who were nominated by the last Republican governor, George E. Pataki, cracking the conservative majority.
The changes to the culture of the court, New York’s highest — which has sometimes been one of the most influential state courts in the country — are especially striking when Chief Judge Lippman’s approach is compared with the judicial style of his predecessor, Judith S. Kaye. She had prized unanimity.
In the past year, the court has issued a series of sharply divided decisions that have been surprising from a judicial body with a clear 4-to-3 conservative majority. They have included decisions favoring criminal defendants and injured workers, expanding environmental challenges and extolling individual rights against the police.
“The message he is sending is he doesn’t mind fighting for a much more progressive direction at the court,” Vincent M. Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who studies the court, said of Judge Lippman.
Though fiscal and political problems have plagued Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, Judge Lippman’s nomination may be one of his most enduring accomplishments in shaping policy. Judge Lippman, 64, does not reach mandatory retirement age until 2015.
Noting that the Supreme Court had yet to rule on questions presented by Global Positioning Systems, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that the State Constitution barred the police from placing GPS tracking devices on cars without a warrant.
A different Republican judge joined the three Democratic appointees in another divided ruling, this one striking down a youth curfew in Rochester as unconstitutional, though other courts around the country have approved such laws.
The Lippman court has also shifted ground on worker injury suits, saying that in the past the court too rigidly limited some of them. It has also signaled a new interest in arguments from criminal defendants, sharply increasing, at Judge Lippman’s urging, the number of appeals it is considering.
In an interview, Judge Lippman acknowledged that he had a different approach from that of Judge Kaye, a longtime collaborator in running the courts.
She was also nominated by a Democrat, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, but during her nearly 16 years as chief judge, she often worked for unified rulings.
“I am a result-oriented person,” Judge Lippman said, “and the result I am looking for is not necessarily unanimity.”
According to the court, unanimous rulings declined from about 82 percent during 2008, Judge Kaye’s final year, to 69 percent in Judge Lippman’s first year.
During Judge Kaye’s tenure, the court became more conservative partly because of the arrival of the four Pataki judges. Professor Bonventre, the Albany Law School expert, said that divided decisions became more common in Judge Kaye’s final years but that dissents increased further after Judge Lippman arrived.
The rulings indicate that on occasion, Judge Lippman has tailored his arguments to attract one of the four Pataki judges.
In a decision he wrote in September, the court waded into politics by overruling two lower courts that had said Mr. Paterson’s appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was unlawful.
That view, Judge Lippman wrote, would “frustrate the work of the executive branch.”
It was an argument that seemed crafted to appeal to Judge Susan P. Read, a staunch conservative but a former top legal adviser to Governor Pataki, who was not shy about exerting executive authority. It was a party-line vote, except that Judge Read broke with the other Pataki appointees.
In the environmental case, Judge Lippman and the other two Democratic appointees aligned with two of the Republican-appointed judges, Victoria A. Graffeo, a onetime Republican legislative lawyer, and Robert S. Smith, who had sometimes expressed libertarian views.
The decision, written by Judge Smith, appeared to involve tradeoffs.
It tartly noted that the suit sought to kill a proposed hotel to protect obscure species, the Eastern spadefoot toad and the worm snake.
The hotel got a green light. But in the process, the case gave environmentalists one of their most important court victories in New York in nearly 20 years. The majority said a 1991 ruling of the court had been too narrowly applied to limit those who could bring such suits to immediate neighbors.
Stephen F. Downs, the lawyer for Save the Pine Bush, the Albany group that brought the suit, said someone on the bench seemed to be paying for an environmental victory with a defeat for the spadefoot toad. “My impression,” Mr. Downs said, “was there was a certain amount of horse trading that went on.”
That would be vintage Lippman, people who know him say. He was a get-things-done administrator, said a retired judge, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, who has known him throughout his 38-year legal career. ""
Source of Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18lippman.html
New York Court Corruption, Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest. Time for Accountability in the New York Courts. Time Whistleblowers were heard and time Proskauer Rose to be accountable for their actions. The Iviewit Stolen Patent Case has many players, however Proskauer Rose is the Patent Attorney that STOLE the Trillion Dollar Patent and Judge Judith Kaye and Her Connections to Proskauer Rose through her Husband.. Stephen Kaye made a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft such as the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent, seem like a Simple "Standard of Practice"...
Pay Attention Folks as more Unfolds on the Connections, Cronism and Conflicts of Interest of Proskauer Rose LLP - Ex-Judge Judith Kaye, Andrew Cuomo ( whose Father Appointed Judith Kaye) and how this all relates to court corruption in New York...
posted here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV
The choice was a gamble: The judge, a longtime court administrator, did not have a long history of deciding cases, and there was almost no record of his political views.
Judge Jonathan Lippman has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.
Now, a year in, the parameters of the Lippman court are coming into focus. He has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.
To get the rulings he wants, the decisions show, the new chief judge has built alliances case by case with each of the four judges who were nominated by the last Republican governor, George E. Pataki, cracking the conservative majority.
The changes to the culture of the court, New York’s highest — which has sometimes been one of the most influential state courts in the country — are especially striking when Chief Judge Lippman’s approach is compared with the judicial style of his predecessor, Judith S. Kaye. She had prized unanimity.
In the past year, the court has issued a series of sharply divided decisions that have been surprising from a judicial body with a clear 4-to-3 conservative majority. They have included decisions favoring criminal defendants and injured workers, expanding environmental challenges and extolling individual rights against the police.
“The message he is sending is he doesn’t mind fighting for a much more progressive direction at the court,” Vincent M. Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who studies the court, said of Judge Lippman.
Though fiscal and political problems have plagued Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, Judge Lippman’s nomination may be one of his most enduring accomplishments in shaping policy. Judge Lippman, 64, does not reach mandatory retirement age until 2015.
Noting that the Supreme Court had yet to rule on questions presented by Global Positioning Systems, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that the State Constitution barred the police from placing GPS tracking devices on cars without a warrant.
A different Republican judge joined the three Democratic appointees in another divided ruling, this one striking down a youth curfew in Rochester as unconstitutional, though other courts around the country have approved such laws.
The Lippman court has also shifted ground on worker injury suits, saying that in the past the court too rigidly limited some of them. It has also signaled a new interest in arguments from criminal defendants, sharply increasing, at Judge Lippman’s urging, the number of appeals it is considering.
In an interview, Judge Lippman acknowledged that he had a different approach from that of Judge Kaye, a longtime collaborator in running the courts.
She was also nominated by a Democrat, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, but during her nearly 16 years as chief judge, she often worked for unified rulings.
“I am a result-oriented person,” Judge Lippman said, “and the result I am looking for is not necessarily unanimity.”
According to the court, unanimous rulings declined from about 82 percent during 2008, Judge Kaye’s final year, to 69 percent in Judge Lippman’s first year.
During Judge Kaye’s tenure, the court became more conservative partly because of the arrival of the four Pataki judges. Professor Bonventre, the Albany Law School expert, said that divided decisions became more common in Judge Kaye’s final years but that dissents increased further after Judge Lippman arrived.
The rulings indicate that on occasion, Judge Lippman has tailored his arguments to attract one of the four Pataki judges.
In a decision he wrote in September, the court waded into politics by overruling two lower courts that had said Mr. Paterson’s appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was unlawful.
That view, Judge Lippman wrote, would “frustrate the work of the executive branch.”
It was an argument that seemed crafted to appeal to Judge Susan P. Read, a staunch conservative but a former top legal adviser to Governor Pataki, who was not shy about exerting executive authority. It was a party-line vote, except that Judge Read broke with the other Pataki appointees.
In the environmental case, Judge Lippman and the other two Democratic appointees aligned with two of the Republican-appointed judges, Victoria A. Graffeo, a onetime Republican legislative lawyer, and Robert S. Smith, who had sometimes expressed libertarian views.
The decision, written by Judge Smith, appeared to involve tradeoffs.
It tartly noted that the suit sought to kill a proposed hotel to protect obscure species, the Eastern spadefoot toad and the worm snake.
The hotel got a green light. But in the process, the case gave environmentalists one of their most important court victories in New York in nearly 20 years. The majority said a 1991 ruling of the court had been too narrowly applied to limit those who could bring such suits to immediate neighbors.
Stephen F. Downs, the lawyer for Save the Pine Bush, the Albany group that brought the suit, said someone on the bench seemed to be paying for an environmental victory with a defeat for the spadefoot toad. “My impression,” Mr. Downs said, “was there was a certain amount of horse trading that went on.”
That would be vintage Lippman, people who know him say. He was a get-things-done administrator, said a retired judge, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, who has known him throughout his 38-year legal career. ""
Source of Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18lippman.html
New York Court Corruption, Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest. Time for Accountability in the New York Courts. Time Whistleblowers were heard and time Proskauer Rose to be accountable for their actions. The Iviewit Stolen Patent Case has many players, however Proskauer Rose is the Patent Attorney that STOLE the Trillion Dollar Patent and Judge Judith Kaye and Her Connections to Proskauer Rose through her Husband.. Stephen Kaye made a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft such as the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent, seem like a Simple "Standard of Practice"...
Pay Attention Folks as more Unfolds on the Connections, Cronism and Conflicts of Interest of Proskauer Rose LLP - Ex-Judge Judith Kaye, Andrew Cuomo ( whose Father Appointed Judith Kaye) and how this all relates to court corruption in New York...
posted here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Marc S. Dreier SEC Investigation and Conviction - Excerpts from Eliot Bernsteins SEC Complaint.
"" The SEC Indictment and Conviction of Marc S. Dreier as it relates to Proskauer, comes from the connection to Patent Attorney Raymond A. Joao.
Joao initially introduced to Iviewit as a Proskauer partner by Wheeler, along with Rubenstein, when they were actually with Meltzer at that time.
Once investors in Iviewit learned Rubenstein and Joao were not with Proskauer as represented, Proskauer partner Christopher C. Wheeler (“Wheeler”) claimed they were transferring to Proskauer shortly.
Rubenstein then transferred almost overnight and Joao was to follow after he finished work at Meltzer but since he was actually writing the patent applications under Rubenstein’s direction for Iviewit, Iviewit had to take an additional retainer to Proskauer’s with Meltzer until Joao transferred.
However, Joao never transferred to Proskauer Rose and during his first year of work for Iviewit, it was discovered that Joao allegedly was not filing timely and correct patent applications and patenting inventions in his own name.
Joao now under ongoing investigation at the US Patent Office and FBI, ordered for by the First Dept and yet to be completed and more. Wheeler then claimed that Proskauer was beginning an investigation of Joao, ironically, and ignoring the conflicts this presented, as Joao was Proskauer, Wheeler and Rubenstein’s referral.
Christopher Wheeler then suggested his good friend William Dick (“Dick”) of Foley to replace Joao for filing the patents and reviewing Joao’s work, continuing under Rubenstein’s oversight, as described in the Wachovia Private Placement already exhibited herein.
What Christopher Wheeler failed to disclose to Iviewit is that Dick had been involved immediately prior to being retained by Iviewit, with both Wheeler and another Proskauer/Wheeler referral to Iviewit, Brian G. Utley, formerly employed by IBM and working with Dick, Utley then becoming President of Iviewit, in another allegedly failed Intellectual Property theft.
The prior attempted Intellectual Property heist was against another Florida businessperson, Philanthropist Monte Friedkin of Diamond Turf Equipment Co. and whereby all those addressed herein should take note of the Prior History of these alleged patent thieves, clearly indicating that this is an organized and repeated crime against inventors.
The SEC should note that Wheeler presented a falsified resume for his friend Utley to Iviewit that not only failed to disclose the attempted theft but also failed to disclose, and in fact materially falsified Utley’s resume concealing the facts by claiming Utley left the company Diamond Turf a success due to his innovations.
Factually, the attempted IP theft, according to Friedkin, led to the firing of Utley by Friedkin and Friedkin’s immediately closing the business and taking a multimillion-dollar loss directly due to the scheme perpetrated by Utley, Dick and Wheeler. Dick also failed to disclose this fact when joining Iviewit.
In both Utley and Wheeler’s depositions, already exhibited herein, both Utley and Wheeler contradict each other’s statements when confronted with the Friedkin information and Dick in his Virginia Bar Response to a complaint filed against him further contradicts both Wheeler and Utley regarding the Friedkin events. Supplementary evidence confirming these claims can be found on the Iviewit homepage at www.iviewit.tv .
When Dick replaced Joao, the press reported that Joao claimed he now had 90+ patents in his own name, many allegedly directly lifted from Iviewit.
Joao then joined the Marc S. Dreier law firm of Dreier & Baritz. This new information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Dreier Ponzi Scheme in light of this new evidence, and in fact, the monies of the Dreier Ponzi allegedly directly relate to royalties from sales and licensing of Joao’s stolen Intellectual Properties.
The Dreier Ponzi is alleged to be another money-laundering scheme concocted by the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.
The SEC should also cease distribution of assets in the Dreier Ponzi, especially where the Trustee appears conflicted with Proskauer and again the court actions may be further attempts by these all too clever law firms to abscond with funds in further illegal legal actions and Fraud on the Court. ""
Where is the SEC and Mary Schapiro In All This ?
Click Here for Full SEC Complaint by Iviewit Technologies, Eliot I. Bernstein.
posted here by
investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Joao initially introduced to Iviewit as a Proskauer partner by Wheeler, along with Rubenstein, when they were actually with Meltzer at that time.
Once investors in Iviewit learned Rubenstein and Joao were not with Proskauer as represented, Proskauer partner Christopher C. Wheeler (“Wheeler”) claimed they were transferring to Proskauer shortly.
Rubenstein then transferred almost overnight and Joao was to follow after he finished work at Meltzer but since he was actually writing the patent applications under Rubenstein’s direction for Iviewit, Iviewit had to take an additional retainer to Proskauer’s with Meltzer until Joao transferred.
However, Joao never transferred to Proskauer Rose and during his first year of work for Iviewit, it was discovered that Joao allegedly was not filing timely and correct patent applications and patenting inventions in his own name.
Joao now under ongoing investigation at the US Patent Office and FBI, ordered for by the First Dept and yet to be completed and more. Wheeler then claimed that Proskauer was beginning an investigation of Joao, ironically, and ignoring the conflicts this presented, as Joao was Proskauer, Wheeler and Rubenstein’s referral.
Christopher Wheeler then suggested his good friend William Dick (“Dick”) of Foley to replace Joao for filing the patents and reviewing Joao’s work, continuing under Rubenstein’s oversight, as described in the Wachovia Private Placement already exhibited herein.
What Christopher Wheeler failed to disclose to Iviewit is that Dick had been involved immediately prior to being retained by Iviewit, with both Wheeler and another Proskauer/Wheeler referral to Iviewit, Brian G. Utley, formerly employed by IBM and working with Dick, Utley then becoming President of Iviewit, in another allegedly failed Intellectual Property theft.
The prior attempted Intellectual Property heist was against another Florida businessperson, Philanthropist Monte Friedkin of Diamond Turf Equipment Co. and whereby all those addressed herein should take note of the Prior History of these alleged patent thieves, clearly indicating that this is an organized and repeated crime against inventors.
The SEC should note that Wheeler presented a falsified resume for his friend Utley to Iviewit that not only failed to disclose the attempted theft but also failed to disclose, and in fact materially falsified Utley’s resume concealing the facts by claiming Utley left the company Diamond Turf a success due to his innovations.
Factually, the attempted IP theft, according to Friedkin, led to the firing of Utley by Friedkin and Friedkin’s immediately closing the business and taking a multimillion-dollar loss directly due to the scheme perpetrated by Utley, Dick and Wheeler. Dick also failed to disclose this fact when joining Iviewit.
In both Utley and Wheeler’s depositions, already exhibited herein, both Utley and Wheeler contradict each other’s statements when confronted with the Friedkin information and Dick in his Virginia Bar Response to a complaint filed against him further contradicts both Wheeler and Utley regarding the Friedkin events. Supplementary evidence confirming these claims can be found on the Iviewit homepage at www.iviewit.tv .
When Dick replaced Joao, the press reported that Joao claimed he now had 90+ patents in his own name, many allegedly directly lifted from Iviewit.
Joao then joined the Marc S. Dreier law firm of Dreier & Baritz. This new information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Dreier Ponzi Scheme in light of this new evidence, and in fact, the monies of the Dreier Ponzi allegedly directly relate to royalties from sales and licensing of Joao’s stolen Intellectual Properties.
The Dreier Ponzi is alleged to be another money-laundering scheme concocted by the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.
The SEC should also cease distribution of assets in the Dreier Ponzi, especially where the Trustee appears conflicted with Proskauer and again the court actions may be further attempts by these all too clever law firms to abscond with funds in further illegal legal actions and Fraud on the Court. ""
Where is the SEC and Mary Schapiro In All This ?
Click Here for Full SEC Complaint by Iviewit Technologies, Eliot I. Bernstein.
posted here by
investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Where there is Billions Lost by Investors and Trillion Dollar Patent Thefts, there is Proskauer Rose LLP and the US Second Circuit Court.
US Second Circuit Court Seems to Ignore Emergency Request
to Investigate Proskauer Rose LLP.
Information from March 2009 included in Eliot Bernstein's Complaint to the SEC On Proskauer Rose... Time Warner, Warner Bros., Intel Corp, SGI, Lockheed Martin and More...
Was anyone listening to Eliot I. Bernstein? Or was the Madoff Liquidation of Assets just simply another layer to an already corruption Multi-Billion Dollar investment scheme...
From Eliot Bernstein's Blog on his SEC Complaint listing Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner, Ernst Young, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin and explaining a whole lot more about the names and players of the Trillion Dollar Stolen Iviewit Patent, and the Involvement and Cover Ups for and by Proskauer Rose LLP - Meg Law Firm.
" " March 02, 2009 “EMERGENCY MOTION TO INVESTIGATE PROSKAUER ROSE DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEN STANFORD FINANCIAL, THE BERNARD MADOFF AND THE MARC DRIER FRAUD SCANDALS.
REMOVE PROSKAUER FROM SELF REPRESENTATION IN THESE MATTERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE FBI REMOVES THEM FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STANFORD FINANCIAL FRAUD”
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf
I filed Motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and US District Court, already exhibited herein, with similar claims of regulatory failures of the prior Presidential administration. Failures allegedly directly related to the Madoff case and I have reported this to Federal Authorities.
The Motions also discuss Conflicts centering on the Madoff saga where Proskauer publicly identified their firm as having the most clients in the Madoff Ponzi and now it is revealed in the press that many Madoff clients are the subject of ongoing SEC investigations.
The Motion at the US Second Circuit is to Compel that court to address the Conflicts of Interest and other matters according to law, laws being ignored while the Court and the Defendants perpetuate never ending Conflicts and Crimes. Note here that the handling of the Madoff Ponzi is by the same courts handling my RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and that the same courts were notified for months of the correlations between the Madoff Ponzi and my Lawsuit and have failed to notify the proper authorities, including the SEC and instead attempted to bury my lawsuit and motions.
The SEC should further note that in the courts handling my Lawsuit, many of the judges and clerks are also Defendants in the Lawsuit and despite the obvious conflicts, they continue to handle the matters, as if no rules or laws apply to them.
These illegal actions by members of the courts should also be cause for the SEC, FBI and others addressed herein to investigate the members of the courts involved for possible collusion and aiding and abetting these schemes through Fraud on the Courts.
Following this Formal Complaint, for the courts failures to address the conflicts and misprision of a felony, the three Second Circuit Judges involved in my appeal will be filed on for Criminal Obstruction and other crimes, as exhibited already in the Motion to Compel.
The SEC should note here that the US Second Circuit has recently attempted to evade the Motion to Compel, by attempting to dismiss the Appeal as baseless, while the related Whistleblower case remains ongoing.
Sneaky as it sounds, by dismissing the case, the court has evaded addressing the criminal charges levied against them and the request for oversight of their criminal actions, as set forth in the Motion to Compel. This brilliant but failed attempt to evade the Motion to Compel, without having to rule on their conflicts or answer the charges against them, despite factual and material conflicts of interests in the court, further evidences their continued criminal obstruction.
All those addressed herein, should therefore immediately begin investigation of the Second Circuit and US District Court for the Southern District of New York court officials involved. Especially concerning their concealment from authorities of these material facts relating to these Schemes, again which may be a Misprision of Felony and whereby had the courts acted within law they could have prevented injury to many victims in these Schemes years earlier, when I initially reported Proskauer’s misdeeds to them.
This information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Madoff Scheme in light of this new evidence. All asset sales and other distributions should instantly be halted until these material facts can be reviewed to determine if these funds are also relating to the Iviewit stolen patents. " "
Click here for Source of this Post and the Entire SEC Complaint
Wake Up Mary Schapiro - this is and has been a Financial EMERGENCY for a VERY long time..
Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
If you have any information on Proskauer Rose's further involvement in the Standford Affair, the Madoff Scheme or any dirty deeds or favors owed that would make it so that Proskauer Rose LLP can seem to hold no accountability for Billions of Dollars of Shareholder Loss... Please Email Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox at Crystal@CrytalCox.com
blog
crystal cox
to Investigate Proskauer Rose LLP.
Information from March 2009 included in Eliot Bernstein's Complaint to the SEC On Proskauer Rose... Time Warner, Warner Bros., Intel Corp, SGI, Lockheed Martin and More...
Was anyone listening to Eliot I. Bernstein? Or was the Madoff Liquidation of Assets just simply another layer to an already corruption Multi-Billion Dollar investment scheme...
From Eliot Bernstein's Blog on his SEC Complaint listing Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner, Ernst Young, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin and explaining a whole lot more about the names and players of the Trillion Dollar Stolen Iviewit Patent, and the Involvement and Cover Ups for and by Proskauer Rose LLP - Meg Law Firm.
" " March 02, 2009 “EMERGENCY MOTION TO INVESTIGATE PROSKAUER ROSE DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEN STANFORD FINANCIAL, THE BERNARD MADOFF AND THE MARC DRIER FRAUD SCANDALS.
REMOVE PROSKAUER FROM SELF REPRESENTATION IN THESE MATTERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE FBI REMOVES THEM FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STANFORD FINANCIAL FRAUD”
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf
I filed Motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and US District Court, already exhibited herein, with similar claims of regulatory failures of the prior Presidential administration. Failures allegedly directly related to the Madoff case and I have reported this to Federal Authorities.
The Motions also discuss Conflicts centering on the Madoff saga where Proskauer publicly identified their firm as having the most clients in the Madoff Ponzi and now it is revealed in the press that many Madoff clients are the subject of ongoing SEC investigations.
The Motion at the US Second Circuit is to Compel that court to address the Conflicts of Interest and other matters according to law, laws being ignored while the Court and the Defendants perpetuate never ending Conflicts and Crimes. Note here that the handling of the Madoff Ponzi is by the same courts handling my RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and that the same courts were notified for months of the correlations between the Madoff Ponzi and my Lawsuit and have failed to notify the proper authorities, including the SEC and instead attempted to bury my lawsuit and motions.
The SEC should further note that in the courts handling my Lawsuit, many of the judges and clerks are also Defendants in the Lawsuit and despite the obvious conflicts, they continue to handle the matters, as if no rules or laws apply to them.
These illegal actions by members of the courts should also be cause for the SEC, FBI and others addressed herein to investigate the members of the courts involved for possible collusion and aiding and abetting these schemes through Fraud on the Courts.
Following this Formal Complaint, for the courts failures to address the conflicts and misprision of a felony, the three Second Circuit Judges involved in my appeal will be filed on for Criminal Obstruction and other crimes, as exhibited already in the Motion to Compel.
The SEC should note here that the US Second Circuit has recently attempted to evade the Motion to Compel, by attempting to dismiss the Appeal as baseless, while the related Whistleblower case remains ongoing.
Sneaky as it sounds, by dismissing the case, the court has evaded addressing the criminal charges levied against them and the request for oversight of their criminal actions, as set forth in the Motion to Compel. This brilliant but failed attempt to evade the Motion to Compel, without having to rule on their conflicts or answer the charges against them, despite factual and material conflicts of interests in the court, further evidences their continued criminal obstruction.
All those addressed herein, should therefore immediately begin investigation of the Second Circuit and US District Court for the Southern District of New York court officials involved. Especially concerning their concealment from authorities of these material facts relating to these Schemes, again which may be a Misprision of Felony and whereby had the courts acted within law they could have prevented injury to many victims in these Schemes years earlier, when I initially reported Proskauer’s misdeeds to them.
This information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Madoff Scheme in light of this new evidence. All asset sales and other distributions should instantly be halted until these material facts can be reviewed to determine if these funds are also relating to the Iviewit stolen patents. " "
Click here for Source of this Post and the Entire SEC Complaint
Wake Up Mary Schapiro - this is and has been a Financial EMERGENCY for a VERY long time..
Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
If you have any information on Proskauer Rose's further involvement in the Standford Affair, the Madoff Scheme or any dirty deeds or favors owed that would make it so that Proskauer Rose LLP can seem to hold no accountability for Billions of Dollars of Shareholder Loss... Please Email Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox at Crystal@CrytalCox.com
blog
crystal cox
Iviewit Stolen Patent, Hall and Bernstein calls to Time Warner Inc. and Warner Bros. executives
"" 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.
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. ""
Full SEC Complaint Name Time Warner Click HERE
and Source of Above Post
posted on this blog by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
blogger crystal cox
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.
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. ""
Full SEC Complaint Name Time Warner Click HERE
and Source of Above Post
posted on this blog by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
blogger crystal cox
Warner Bros. Signed Non Disclosure Agreements with Iviewit, Warner Violated those Agreements. Warner Signed License and Service Agreements.. .
Warner Bros. - has broke the Law and in the process put shareholders at HUGE risk, why is Jeffrey Bewkes ignoring this blatant proof of Fraud.
Warner Bros signed multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements and Warner Bros. Signed License and Service Agreements with the Iviewit Company. 9 years have passed and Warner Bros. Blatantly and Illegally Violated those agreements long ago, why?
And Now Eliot Bernstein Founder and one of the Inventors it the Iviewit Stolen Patent has filed a very informative, incredibly detailed SEC Complaint. One that for Now Mary Schapiro and the SEC seems to be ignoring... I am not sure why just yet.. but hope to get tips on this soon...
Some of the Warner Bros' Iviewit Timeline and more details
of the Warner Bros. Relationship with the Iviewit Company.
" " 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[5].
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.
· 2000-2002
Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.
Non-Disclosure Agreements @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf
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
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668364,00.html
· 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
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[6]. 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
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. ""
Source of Post and of Warner Bros SEC Complaint
Warner Bros signed multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements and Warner Bros. Signed License and Service Agreements with the Iviewit Company. 9 years have passed and Warner Bros. Blatantly and Illegally Violated those agreements long ago, why?
And Now Eliot Bernstein Founder and one of the Inventors it the Iviewit Stolen Patent has filed a very informative, incredibly detailed SEC Complaint. One that for Now Mary Schapiro and the SEC seems to be ignoring... I am not sure why just yet.. but hope to get tips on this soon...
Some of the Warner Bros' Iviewit Timeline and more details
of the Warner Bros. Relationship with the Iviewit Company.
" " 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[5].
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.
· 2000-2002
Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.
Non-Disclosure Agreements @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf
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
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668364,00.html
· 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
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[6]. 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
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. ""
Source of Post and of Warner Bros SEC Complaint
Friday, February 5, 2010
P. Stephen Lamont - Friend or Foe of the Iviewit Shareholders?
Is P. Stephen Lamont working for or Against the Iviewit Shareholders and the best interest of the Iviewit Inventors?
******
Below is an excerpt from an SEC letter to be filed shortly regarding information regarding the fraudulent actions of P. Stephen Lamont in his continued representation of Iviewit, as CEO no less, at an address where no Iviewit company has ever been incorporated or listed with any agency.
P. Stephen Lamont was fired long ago and has no right to act in any capacity for Iviewit or Iviewit Shareholders.
P. Stephen Lamont also has been reported to the courts for his criminal activities in representing shareholders in my Federal RICO and Antitrust case when he is not a licensed attorney and never has passed the bar.
You will find other information below regarding the illegal activities of P. Stephen Lamont and he has been reported to State and Federal agencies regarding these crimes.
I advise anyone considering dealing with P. Stephen Lamont in any capacity to check with your legal counsel about the possible ramifications you may incur regarding any issues with Iviewit and Lamont. These latest assaults on my character etc. appear to be feeble attempts by a desperate man whose cover and misdeeds have been exposed.
P. Stephen Lamont also references filings with the US Second Circuit whereby his separate appeal has been dismissed but fails to mention that in my appeal he also was identified for illegally representing Iviewit Shareholders when he is not an attorney.
• 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
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[1].
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.
o Whereby 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 agreement is attempted to be 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, perhaps because they were denying its existence.
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. 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
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 can take this Formal Complaint additionally
as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY.
• December 20, 2001 ~ P. Stephen Lamont's letter to Kenneth 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 P. Stephen 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 planted at the company which came after he was hired led to the termination of Lamont at that time[2].
December 20, 2001 P. Stephen Lamont Letters to Kenneth Rubenstein ~
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020611%20System%20and%20Method%20for%20Fraud%20on%20USPTO.pdf
Pages 455-462
o 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.
The SEC should note here that Hall and I recently reported Lamont to Federal and State authorities for alleged collusion in the RICO activities claimed in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, including ongoing criminal activities[3].
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.
• P. Stephen 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 and whereby no Iviewit offices were ever opened or authorized at this address. 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 P. Stephen 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 inapposite 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 precluded 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 acts on behalf of Iviewit Shareholders of which he has no authorization from Shareholders to act on their behalf and also is not a lawyer, making it ILLEGAL for him to act on others behalf in a legal capacity.
The District Court and Second Circuit Court notified of this ILLEGAL representation and asked by me to force amendment of the complaint, instead continue to allow the ILLEGAL representation of Lamont to continue. This ILLEGAL representation of Shareholders is also a serious criminal act.
• 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.
o 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 was presented the exhibited document in draft form at his deposition, where he read it 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 and more P. Lamont letters to Kenneth Rubenstein
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2006%2003%20Iviewit%20Rebuttal%20to%20Wheeler%202nd%20Response_Final.pdf
Pages 19-23
o November 20, 2002 Kenneth 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 show Kenneth Rubenstein’s denials.
• 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 and Warner Bros. counsel ) 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.
o 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.
Kenneth 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 when he opined to Warner Bros.
The links below provide information on Kenneth 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 Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein already were terminated by Iviewit and investigations were already underway regarding the patent thefts and more.
o 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
o January 2001 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum, whereby the SEC should note here that Kenneth 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.
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 Kenneth 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, Kenneth Rubenstein is conflicted with 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.
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.
Kenneth 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.
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 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.
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.
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[4].
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 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 it was learned that Raymond Joao 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 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 Warner Bros. claim in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record, it is instead Warner Bros. that attempts to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter.
o 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 was notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches and therefore they should have begun accounting for the IP Liabilities at this time, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.
o 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.
o 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.
o http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Kenneth%20Rubenstein%20Deposition%20with%20Exhibits%20CERT.pdf
pages 3-9
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 activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros. et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of pouring in $25 Million Dollars in investment 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 filed patents and Calkins regarding corporate fraud.
At that time, Warner Bros et al. employees and personnel became aware of fraud relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional to what Andersen had found on or about that time and this information was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins.
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.
A Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer circulated to potential Iviewit investors including Warner Bros. et al. These Securities Frauds contained in the Private Placement are also cause for further SEC investigation.
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 Rose, Foley and Larder 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.
Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office which 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.
Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by their counsel Proskauer Rose.
Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer Rose LLP or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement.
It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer Rose were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer Rose LLP 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 and others.
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.
Kenneth Rubenstein is under investigation with other attorneys by Moatz and was also ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of five justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety for violating public offices to block complaints I filed against him.
Where later, after discovery of the Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, it was learned that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros. was working with Kenneth Rubenstein ( Iviewit Patent Counsel, MPEGLA Counsel and Warner Bros. Counsel ) and that their relationship somehow now precluded Kenneth Rubenstein from re-opining on his prior opinion of the patents for Warner Bros. employees as already evidenced herein.
Whereby Warner Bros. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of those binding signed agreements.
The MPEGLA LLC patent pooling scheme created and overseen by Counsel Rubenstein is merely an artifice to defraud inventors and has illegally precluded me from market in classic antitrust activities, including death threats and a car bomb.
Whereby the DVD Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in have also used the technologies in violation of signed contracts and agreements, admittedly, yet since that time they too have excluded Iviewit from market, again in classic antitrust activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 year Massive Liabilities.
The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between these prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al., communications and contracts and the current contact to notify them again of liabilities resulting from the IP infringement and the newer Lawsuit liabilities, that during the gap I was actively pursuing my rights.
I have given similar information to several investigators and courts over the several years in between communications regarding Warner Bros. et al. involvement in the Iviewit allegations in my Federal RICO Lawsuit.
During the 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 [5] homepage.
Eliot Bernstein... Information to be found at http://www.iviewit.tv/
More Details on the Iviewit Case at www.Iviewit.TV
******
Below is an excerpt from an SEC letter to be filed shortly regarding information regarding the fraudulent actions of P. Stephen Lamont in his continued representation of Iviewit, as CEO no less, at an address where no Iviewit company has ever been incorporated or listed with any agency.
P. Stephen Lamont was fired long ago and has no right to act in any capacity for Iviewit or Iviewit Shareholders.
P. Stephen Lamont also has been reported to the courts for his criminal activities in representing shareholders in my Federal RICO and Antitrust case when he is not a licensed attorney and never has passed the bar.
You will find other information below regarding the illegal activities of P. Stephen Lamont and he has been reported to State and Federal agencies regarding these crimes.
I advise anyone considering dealing with P. Stephen Lamont in any capacity to check with your legal counsel about the possible ramifications you may incur regarding any issues with Iviewit and Lamont. These latest assaults on my character etc. appear to be feeble attempts by a desperate man whose cover and misdeeds have been exposed.
P. Stephen Lamont also references filings with the US Second Circuit whereby his separate appeal has been dismissed but fails to mention that in my appeal he also was identified for illegally representing Iviewit Shareholders when he is not an attorney.
• 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
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[1].
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.
o Whereby 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 agreement is attempted to be 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, perhaps because they were denying its existence.
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. 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
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 can take this Formal Complaint additionally
as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY.
• December 20, 2001 ~ P. Stephen Lamont's letter to Kenneth 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 P. Stephen 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 planted at the company which came after he was hired led to the termination of Lamont at that time[2].
December 20, 2001 P. Stephen Lamont Letters to Kenneth Rubenstein ~
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020611%20System%20and%20Method%20for%20Fraud%20on%20USPTO.pdf
Pages 455-462
o 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.
The SEC should note here that Hall and I recently reported Lamont to Federal and State authorities for alleged collusion in the RICO activities claimed in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, including ongoing criminal activities[3].
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.
• P. Stephen 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 and whereby no Iviewit offices were ever opened or authorized at this address. 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 P. Stephen 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 inapposite 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 precluded 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 acts on behalf of Iviewit Shareholders of which he has no authorization from Shareholders to act on their behalf and also is not a lawyer, making it ILLEGAL for him to act on others behalf in a legal capacity.
The District Court and Second Circuit Court notified of this ILLEGAL representation and asked by me to force amendment of the complaint, instead continue to allow the ILLEGAL representation of Lamont to continue. This ILLEGAL representation of Shareholders is also a serious criminal act.
• 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.
o 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 was presented the exhibited document in draft form at his deposition, where he read it 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 and more P. Lamont letters to Kenneth Rubenstein
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2006%2003%20Iviewit%20Rebuttal%20to%20Wheeler%202nd%20Response_Final.pdf
Pages 19-23
o November 20, 2002 Kenneth 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 show Kenneth Rubenstein’s denials.
• 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 and Warner Bros. counsel ) 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.
o 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.
Kenneth 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 when he opined to Warner Bros.
The links below provide information on Kenneth 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 Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein already were terminated by Iviewit and investigations were already underway regarding the patent thefts and more.
o 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
o January 2001 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum, whereby the SEC should note here that Kenneth 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.
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 Kenneth 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, Kenneth Rubenstein is conflicted with 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.
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.
Kenneth 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.
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 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.
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.
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[4].
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 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 it was learned that Raymond Joao 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 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 Warner Bros. claim in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record, it is instead Warner Bros. that attempts to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter.
o 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 was notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches and therefore they should have begun accounting for the IP Liabilities at this time, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.
o 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.
o 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.
o http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Kenneth%20Rubenstein%20Deposition%20with%20Exhibits%20CERT.pdf
pages 3-9
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 activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros. et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of pouring in $25 Million Dollars in investment 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 filed patents and Calkins regarding corporate fraud.
At that time, Warner Bros et al. employees and personnel became aware of fraud relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional to what Andersen had found on or about that time and this information was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins.
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.
A Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer circulated to potential Iviewit investors including Warner Bros. et al. These Securities Frauds contained in the Private Placement are also cause for further SEC investigation.
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 Rose, Foley and Larder 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.
Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office which 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.
Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by their counsel Proskauer Rose.
Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer Rose LLP or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement.
It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer Rose were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer Rose LLP 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 and others.
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.
Kenneth Rubenstein is under investigation with other attorneys by Moatz and was also ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of five justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety for violating public offices to block complaints I filed against him.
Where later, after discovery of the Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, it was learned that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros. was working with Kenneth Rubenstein ( Iviewit Patent Counsel, MPEGLA Counsel and Warner Bros. Counsel ) and that their relationship somehow now precluded Kenneth Rubenstein from re-opining on his prior opinion of the patents for Warner Bros. employees as already evidenced herein.
Whereby Warner Bros. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of those binding signed agreements.
The MPEGLA LLC patent pooling scheme created and overseen by Counsel Rubenstein is merely an artifice to defraud inventors and has illegally precluded me from market in classic antitrust activities, including death threats and a car bomb.
Whereby the DVD Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in have also used the technologies in violation of signed contracts and agreements, admittedly, yet since that time they too have excluded Iviewit from market, again in classic antitrust activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 year Massive Liabilities.
The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between these prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al., communications and contracts and the current contact to notify them again of liabilities resulting from the IP infringement and the newer Lawsuit liabilities, that during the gap I was actively pursuing my rights.
I have given similar information to several investigators and courts over the several years in between communications regarding Warner Bros. et al. involvement in the Iviewit allegations in my Federal RICO Lawsuit.
During the 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 [5] homepage.
Eliot Bernstein... Information to be found at http://www.iviewit.tv/
More Details on the Iviewit Case at www.Iviewit.TV
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)