Massive Shareholder Fraud - Iviewit Technoligies SEC Complaint Against Warner Bros.,AOL ..

Eugene Volokh, Mayer Brown and Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC file a Motion for a New Trial in Obsidian V. Cox, Free Speech Case out of Portland Oregon.

2012-01-06T11:54:00.000-08:00

"Motion for New Trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am

Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.

As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.

The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:

Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”

Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded that “in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).

And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.

Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);

Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));

First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).

All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.

And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.

Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.

But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).

And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.

The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).

Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.

But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others;

or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.

In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).

But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.

All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."

Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial

Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede

Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee.

Peter Sivere - the SEC Knows about Massive Fraud like iViewit and they Protect Corporations and NOT Whistleblowers Like Peter Sivere and Eliot Bernstein.

2011-12-28T11:24:00.001-08:00

"How did they not hear about this sooner? That's the question burned investors were asking the SEC in December 2008 when regulators charged Bernie Madoff with securities fraud for a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme he'd been running for decades.

Turns out the SEC did hear about it--more than six times. But when whistleblowers sounded off, the agency turned a deaf ear.

A 2009 report released by the SEC Inspector General reveals that whistleblowers filed complaints involving Madoff as early as 1992. Over the next 16 years before Madoff confessed in 2008, the SEC received six "substantive complaints that raised significant red flags." But examiners never conducted a "thorough investigation" of Madoff's operations and they rejected additional evidence from whistleblowers like hedge-fund manager Harry Markopolous.

Markopolous is just one of a number of whistleblowers who in recent years has tried to alert the SEC of potential wrongdoing, only to be ignored or misunderstood.

And the number may be dwindling. Besides book-deals and obscure Person of the Year awards, tipsters have little incentive to come forward. The SEC's whistleblower "bounty" program hasn't offered much additional incentive. Since its creation in 1989, the little known program has made reward payments to only five claimants totaling $159,537.

A new report by the SEC Inspector General recommends that its whistleblower program be overhauled. In the meantime, wet your whistle on our list of the SEC's Biggest Whistleblower Blunders:"

Source and Full Article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/the-secs-biggest-whistleb_n_529500.html#s79472&title=George_Demos_Peter

For More on the Peter Sivere Whistleblower Story
http://www.PeterSivere.com/

I have been talking to Peter Sivere for years and Thousands like him who tell the Department of Justice, the FBI, local cops and judges, attorneys, the SEC, the USPTO and more .. they Expose the truth with tons of proof and they are NOT heard, so they turn to me, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox because I get their story and documents in top placement in the search engines and for FREE.

More on the iViewit Story
http://www.DeniedPatent.com/

The SEC has known for over a decade and though shareholders of Intel, Warner Bros., Sony, AOL, Time Warner, and tons more will lose billions and they KNOW, the SEC hides corruption and protects Elite Law Firms such as Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig and Proskauer Rose. And the SEC ignores over a thousand documents of proof, depositions perjured, billing, tax records and tons of proof. One day Shareholders involved in the iViewit Scandal will lost Billions and Ernst and Young and other auditors will have proved to have known the whole time and did NOT protect shareholders, investors deliberately, to favor protected Law Firms, Tech and Media Companies.

Warner Bros. Jeffrey Bewkes and Former General Counsel Curtis Lu ( now General Counsel for Lightsquared), will deny they knew and that will be a flat out lie as the iViewit Story has been online for over a decade and on my sites for over 3 years. Curtis Lu and Jeffrey Bewkes know, and have fore a long time, there is audio of a conversation as recent as a year ago with Curtis Lu and one of the iViewit Inventors Eliot Bernstein. And Jeffrey Bewkes has ignored this issue for years even though Warner Bros. Time Warner had signed agreements and non-compete agreements with the iViewit Inventors.

Shareholders need to demand that the iViewit scandal be dealt with RIGHT NOW. As every year costs Millions more per company. Read the Documents, dig deep the SEC Knows and they are keeping it from you, the shareholders and investors to protect those involved.

It is time to demand that the Department of Justice, SEC, FBI, and more STOP protecting Elite Law Firms, Big Tech Companies and start protecting the PUBLIC that pays their wages and to whom they should be answering to.

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

More on the iViewit Stolen Technology
http://www.crystalcox.com/2011/12/eliot-bernstein-iviewit-testimony-new.html

Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskaur Rose Affiliations, Connections - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Iviewit Technology Theft

2011-07-06T23:24:00.000-07:00

Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskaur Rose Affiliations, Connections - Judith Kaye

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT COURT ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION OF KRANE

KRANE COMPLAINT TO NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT

Steven Krane - the Attorney's Attorney Providing Legal Advice to the Proskaur Rose Law Firm.

Proskaur.com Bio in Part.."Steven Krane is a Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Dpartment, co-head of the Law Firm Practice Group, concentrating in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility, and is Proskauer's General Counsel, responsible for providing professional legal advice to the firm.

Steven represents law firms and individual lawyers in a variety of professional matters, including rendering opinions and counseling them on a daily basis on a broad range of professional matters including conflicts of interest, client confidentiality, cross-border legal practice issues, partnership disputes, internal investigations, ancillary businesses and alternative business structures for law firms. In addition, he defends law firms in litigated proceedings involving legal malpractice and other civil claims, represents individual lawyers before grievance and disciplinary committees and assists lawyers in disputes concerning admission to the Bar.

He has served as a litigation consultant and expert witness testifying on a variety of issues such as conflicts of interest, litigation conduct, legal malpractice, billing disputes, and solicitation of clients by lawyers leaving a law firm.

Steven is among the nation’s leaders in developing and interpreting the rules governing the professional conduct of lawyers. He is the immediate past chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, on which he served since 2004.

For 14 years, he has led the New York State Bar Association committee that is responsible for formulating the ethical rules governing New York lawyers. In 2007, he was appointed by Chief Judge Kaye to be co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law. He served as vice-chair of the NYSBA Special Committee on the Law Governing Firm Structure and Operation (the “MacCrate Committee”), chaired the successor to that committee, the Special Committee on Multidisciplinary Practice, and was recently named Vice-Chair of the International Bar Association Committee on Multidisciplinary Practices. "

More Gibberish at Source of Link
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/steven-krane/

Below Fromwww.Iviewit.TV

Former New York State Bar President and member of Disciplinary Committees and Ethics boards nationwide. Ordered for investigation of conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department.

The investigation has so far been thwarted, through further conflicts in New York, typical New York crooked politics but being from the Windy City, so named for corrupt politics, this will be New York's Greylord.

It was learned that conflict in New York led all the way to Chief Judge Judith Kaye, you guessed it, married to a Proskauer partner, a partner like Krane, Stephen Kaye, G0d now prancing upon his recently departed soul although he was soulless while living towards the end, a partner who was instantly added to newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department (formed instantly after learning of my inventions), although he had no history in IP law, hmmm.

Judge Judy Kaye is also conflicted up the butt with Krane, as he was her former whipping boy, serving as her lapdog clerk.

Krane attempts to use influence peddling like never before seen in Gotham to earn his Proskauer intellectual property partnership wings by blocking Iviewit never revealing his conflicts, until two years into the complaints when news of his conflicts surfaced.

Steven Krane and Judith Kaye (Judge Judy is now the proud conflicted owner of her dead husband Stephen Kaye's Proskauer shares of Iviewit) then had to bury the New York Supreme Court ordered investigation against them and the Proskauer partners, and in a feat unsurpassed in the annals or anals of New York, he ass kisses or offers it for the taking widely, to evade the investigation without even having to give a statement in his defense.

After five Supreme Court Justices unanimously voted for an INVESTIGATION, Stephen Krane, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Anthony Joao, did not even have to provide a response to that court, nor provide one to the department charged with the investigations.

Instead those disciplinary departments wrote little old me how they were going to dismiss it without investigation based on that he was a nice guy basically. It was as if the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, was actually doing his defense, as they tendered all letters on his behalf, he did not answer a single question or put forth a statement in his defense. You guessed it, the First Department and the Second Department are controlled by Proskauer attorneys, those charged with investigating the conflicts, upon a little scratch of the surface were also found in conflict with the matters, Krane and Kaye, and yet they continued handling the complaints against Proskauer and its partners. So assured that top down control of the courts could never be penetrated with Judith Kaye and Stephen Krane controlling them that they acted as if they were above the law.

Perhaps they are above the law, in crime festered New York but they are not above the law of G0d.

Of course I did not order the investigation, a bunch of judges did.

So it begs one to ask why they confronted me to try and evade the investigations and not the court that ordered it. The answer, they could not answer the court with the results of the investigation, as no investigation was ever done and they tried to claim dismissing the case on review was equal to an investigation.

No witnesses were called, no evidence submitted tested, these guys did not even have to tender a response.

How much payola do you think that it costs to buy off three court ordered investigations? With the help of Judge Judy Kaye and some very large illegal gains from the stolen technologies to make people obfuscate their public office duties, they have succeeded but for the moment at evading charges.

Steven Krane stands as the most despicable man in the history of legal ethics, currently found trying to amend laws to protect him and others from prosecution. Perhaps Ken Lay hired him to write some laws to prevent loss of his estate from death or the Bush group has him rewriting war codes to justify torture and protect from prosecution.

Either way, there may soon be a lot of Proskauer and other corrupted lawyers cited herein, wishing for an artery to pop to the brain, with Krane's obese gluttony, he will be first. (I was wrong here, Judy's husband Stephen Krane, G0d unrest his soul, was the first to leave this earthly world for hell for his actions.)

Krane Complaint First Department Exposing Conflicts and Violations of Public Office. Krane then goes on to really fuck himself when he writes his own defense of his bar complaint, failing to disclose his conflicting positions at the disciplinary department and further concealing them in an effort to deny he was caught, this little lie cost him orders for investigation.

Krane Suicide Letter

Steven Krane was busted immediately following that letter, after Clerk of the Court, Catherine O’Hagan Wolf identified that Steven Krane was in fact a member of the disciplinary committee that his letter denied, in fact she sat on several committee’s with Steven Krane and was stunned that he would be handling a complaint against himself or his partners, she suggested Iviewit file the Motion with the Court that led to the unanimous ruling for investigation.

OK breaking news in November 2007 comes in the form of Krane's buddy at the First Department, Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York First Department, DDC. Thomas Cahill is busted for burying and whitewashing complaints against attorneys that he is charged with investigating.

Oh, shit gets really bad as the informant is an insider, a 62 yr old black female attorney, who is victimized, physically assaulted and terminated for her bravery to stand up to wrongdoings at the Department. In a $100M Federal Lawsuit, she names Iviewit in P. 97 of the complaint, as a cause of termination.

Oh shit, Thomas Cahill and Steven Krane and their scam exposed from the inside, Holy Cow Batman, Gotham Uppy Ups are going down, The New York Law Journal writes a story exposing Cahill and others for derailing complaints against attorneys, exactly what Iviewit is claiming to the Feds.

Holy Big Shit Batman, The New York Times follows with an even more devastating article and now New York is on fire, Kerik, the whole criminal political crime family composed of scumbag lawyers, judges and politicians is flaming downward, hell awaits, my smiling face to greet them.

All this shit started by an investigative reporter at Expose Corrupt Courts, a one ballsy Frank Brady, in a time of journalistic lack of integrity and complacency with the corruptions read by propaganda readers like Blitzer (whose his daddy), Sanchez (where did this guy get his journalistic wings) and other script readers, Brady emerges as something of a Ben Bradlee, a Woodward, a Bernstein.

My kudos also go to Dan Wise of the New York Law Journal and Paul Vitello of the New York Times for having the balls to expose corruption New York's Heart of Darkness."

Source:

http://www.iviewit.tv/

Eliot Bernstein Site on the Iviewit Stolent Patent

Original Proskauer Rose - iViewit Post

http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/steven-c-krane-esq-proskaur-rose.html

Proskauer Rose LLP - Kenneth Rubenstein, MPEG LA - Judge Jorge Labarga - Iviewt Theft - Proskauer Rose Perjury - Proskauer Rose Law Firm.

2011-07-06T23:14:00.000-07:00

Proskauer Rose Attorney - Proof of Corruption and Coverups in Iviewit Stolen Technology

2962003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.
2972003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.

304
2003 11 17 - Final Judgment against Iviewit in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case. Judgment was issued by Judge Jorge Labarga, after he cancelled the first trial with no notice to Iviewit or either of their law firms, Selz & Muvdi and Schiffrin & Barroway. At the rescheduling hearing both Schiffrin & Barroway and Selz Muvdi withdrew as counsel stating the other would be handling the case. Labarga let both go instead, despite the fact that Schiffrin & Barroway had signed a binding LOU/Legal Retainer agreement to represent Iviewit at the case. This forced Iviewit to have no counsel and days later Labarga ruled a default on Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel. Iviewit could not find counsel that fast in a almost three year case and Schiffrin and Selz refused to turn over necessary files needed to find new counsel or file an appeal.

305
2003 11 17 - Final Judgment against Iviewit in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case. Judgment was issued by Judge Jorge Labarga, after he cancelled the first trial with no notice to Iviewit or either of their law firms, Selz & Muvdi and Schiffrin & Barroway. At the rescheduling hearing both Schiffrin & Barroway and Selz Muvdi withdrew as counsel stating the other would be handling the case. Labarga let both go instead, despite the fact that Schiffrin & Barroway had signed a binding LOU/Legal Retainer agreement to represent Iviewit at the case. This forced Iviewit to have no counsel and days later Labarga ruled a default on Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel. Iviewit could not find counsel that fast in a almost three year case and Schiffrin and Selz refused to turn over necessary files needed to find new counsel or file an appeal.
300
2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.

301
2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.
Source of Proskauer Rose - iViewit Post
http://www.deniedpatent.com/search/label/Proskauer%20Rose%20LLP

Proskauer Rose Lawyers involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft. Proskauer Ross LLP Steals Technology. Proskauer Rose Causes Massive Shareholder Fraud. Proskauer Rose Lies. Proskauer Rose Attorney Commits Perjury.

2011-07-06T23:06:00.001-07:00

"2002 10 16 Notice of Appeal on Jorge Labarga case.

1962002 10 25 Kenneth Rubenstein sworn statement to Judge Jorge Labarga trying to get out of his deposition and claiming he does not know anything about Iviewit.

1972002 10 25 Kenneth Rubenstein statement to Judge Jorge Labarga, complete false statements to avoid a deposition at his law firms lawsuit against Iviewit for a bill.

1982002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein full deposition with Exhibits CERT. I KNOW NOTHING!

1992002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein deposition regarding his being unsure a conflict check was done by Proskauer. This would have prevented MPEGLA from using the Iviewit processes disclosed to Rubenstein as Iviewit patent counsel, while he was a founder and patent counsel & reviewer for MPEGLA LLC

2002002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein deposition statement that he does not have Iviewit patent documents = Contradictory evidence is a letter showing Christopher Wheeler sending him the entire Iviewit Patent Portfolio.

2012002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition stating he does not know about the video inventions = Contradictory evidence shows that Wheeler was sent video invention disclosures and then later in his deposition he claims to have been at video disclosure meeting with Intel and Real3D engineers.
2022002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition does not know about video invention.
203"2002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition regarding no conflicts check, neither him or Kenneth Rubenstein are sure a conflicts check was ever done.

2042002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition statement that Iviewit was a portal, he didn't know about the technologies and that Proskauer was hired for portal services and not to patent the inventions. Contradictory evidence is overwhelming.

2052002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that no Proskauer conflict of interest check was done.

2062002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that Proskauer and Christopher Wheeler represented Brian G. Utley in the past. They failed to disclose that this former work by Proskauer and Wheeler was for a company where stolen patents went at Utley's former employer. Contradictory evidence = Wheeler's statements under deposition and to the Florida Bar that conflict, constituting perjury. Also, Utley states in deposition that Wheeler never did work for him. "Who's on first."

2072002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition stating Proskauer never opined on the technologies or had anything to do with patents. Contradictory evidence = Wheeler/Proskauer patent opinions for the investors. Wachovia Private Placement showing Wheeler and Rubenstein on the Board of Directors and claiming Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer are retained patent counsel.

2122003 01 28 Proskauer v. Iviewit, Judge Jorge Labarga, Counter Complaint was filed but Labarga refused it claiming attorneys that were initially found representing Iviewit with no authority basically waived any rights to such. It was not learned until much later that the suit involved fraudulent companies set up by Proskauer with stolen intellectual properties in them and that the suit was part of a scheme with a fraudulent federal bankruptcy filing, to seize the patents in a shell game.

2132003 01 31 Eliot Bernstein deposition, this document is well worth the read as Eliot Bernstein deposes the deposition takers from Proskauer, note, Proskauer is continuously representing themselves in all lawsuits and all bar complaints.

2142003 02 25 Raymond Joao 9th district original attorney misconduct complaint - somehow gets transferred to the wrong district, the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee for prosecution with the Proskauer attorney misconduct complaints, although Joao is registered elsewhere.

2152003 02 26 Original attorney misconduct complaint against Proskauer and Kenneth Rubenstein filed at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

2162003 02 26 Original Rubenstein Bar Action

2172003 02 26 Original Florida Bar Complaint against Proskauer and Christopher Wheeler.

218

2003 03 20 Judge Jorge Labarga Court Order for Kenneth Rubenstein and Christopher Wheeler to return to take further deposition to answer previously unanswered questions that they tried to refuse to come back too after being caught lying and perjuring themselves in the first part. The trial is thrown before they can be deposed again.

2192003 04 07 - Christopher Wheeler perjured statement to the Florida Bar regarding Brian G. Utley. Wheeler in a footnote in a response tries to minimize the extent of the lie he is caught in.

220

2003 09 19 Motion for mistrial in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case based on the insane actions of Judge Jorge Labarga.

282
2003 09 23 United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment & Discipline written statement to Harry I Moatz, Director of the OED. Corrected.

283
2003 09 23 Virginia Bar Complaint filed against William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner for Dick's patent crimes.

284
2003 09 25 Certified letter to Harry I. Moatz and William Dick.

285
2003 09 26 - Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar, that civil case was over which is why the failed to investigate originally, although Florida Bar rules prohibit delaying investigation into bar complaints because of civil cases.

286
2003 09 02 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee letter that was lost for months regarding holding off investigation of Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose, Raymond Joao and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel.

287
2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Missing

288
2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Not Signed Missing Exhibits

289
2003 10 02 Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar to re-file the complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler as the civil litigation was completed.

290
2003 10 02 Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar to re-file the complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler as the civil litigation was completed.
Source of Proskauer Rose Post

http://www.deniedpatent.com/search/label/Proskauer%20Rose%20LLP

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Eye on Proskauer Rose

Proskauer Rose LLP, Robert J. Kafin - Securities Fraud - USPTO Fraud - Shareholder Fraud - Anti-Trust Violations - Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Sucks - Proskauer Rose Corruption

2011-07-06T22:49:00.000-07:00

Proskauer Rose Law Firm - RICO Complaint Proskauer Rose

Patent & Copyright Misappropriations

•Co-Directs Frauds: USPTO; EPO; JPO;
Wachovia Securities Fraud;
Iviewit Shareholder Fraud;

•Contributory Antitrust Violations

•Co-Directs RICO Violations

•Tortuous Interference with Business Relationships

•Conflicts of Interest

For More Affiliations, Conflicts of Interest Click on Link Below.

Link to Source Of this Post
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/KAFIN.htm

Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Eye on Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose

Proskauer Rose - From Proskauer Defense Gregg M. Mashberg To Judge Shira A. Scheindlin - Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose Attorneys

2011-07-06T22:44:00.000-07:00

NDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010

United States District Judge
Re: Bernstein V. Appellate Division, First Department

"Dear Judge Scheindlin:

We represent defendants Proskaur Rose LLP, Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane, and the Estate of Stephen R. Kaye. We write to request a pre-motion conference in order to bring a motion to (i) stay service of Plaintiff's amended complaint, due to be filed by May 10, 2008, on all of the new defendants to be named therein...., pending your Honor's disposition of the motions to dismiss the amended comlaint... to be filed ... by the defendants named in the original complaint...

...
Source of Post and Full Document Click Below

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20Proskauer%20to%20Scheindlin%20to%20block%20amended.pdf
Gregg M. Mashberg
YOU either Stand with the Criminal or you Stand with the Victim, you Really Cannot have it Both Ways.

Iviewit Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy Filing to Remove Judge Martin Glenn - Proskauer Rose Involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft - Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose Lawyers

2011-07-06T22:40:00.000-07:00

""« IVIEWIT TRILLION $$ FED SUIT DEFENDANT PROSKAUER ROSE SUED IN GLOBAL CLASS ACTION RE ALLEN STANFORD PONZI - SHIRA SCHEINDLIN WHISTLEBLOWER CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON TO TRIAL FOR PUBLIC OFFICE CORRUPTION CHARGES
Iviewit Motion to Compel US Second Circuit (Circus) Court to Follow Law. Allen Stanford, Bernard Madoff, Marc S. Dreier links to Iviewit via Proskauer Rose and Foley and Lardner implicated in Trillion Dollar Suit. Citizen Arrest of Judge Ralph Winter & Clerk Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe. »

Iviewit Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy Filing
to Remove Judge Martin Glenn
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
In re
GRAPHICS PROPERTIES
HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Debtors.
Chapter 11
Case No. 09-11701 (MG)
(Jointly Administered)
—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ELIOT BERNSTEIN CLAIMANT-CREDITORS MOTION TO COMPEL THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE GLENN AND VACATE ORDERS UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60, BANKRUPTCY RULE 9024 AND FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER RELIEF IN RELATION TO ORDER SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION OF THE DEBTORS TO CLAIM OF ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN

TO THE HONORABLE MARTIN GLENN
SDNY BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

I Eliot Bernstein, Creditor and Claimant previously filed an Emergency motion seeking injunctive and other relief in April of 2009, and filed Proof of Claim No. 225 herein, and recently moved for various relief including but not limited to an extension of time to respond to objections to my proof of claim with such objections filed by Special Counsel Ropes & Gray, motion for an adjournment of a hearing on Sept. 15, 2009 for the appointment of counsel to Eliot Bernstein, motion for the determination of conflicts of interest, and other relief now move to compel the immediate Disqualification of SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, Vacating all Orders of SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn in these jointly administered proceedings specifically including an Order dated September 15, 2009, and for an immediate stay of proceedings pending oversight and assignment of these proceedings to an independent and neutral Judge in accordance with due process and Rules and Codes of Conduct applicable herein.

MOTION TO COMPEL DISQUALIFICATION OF SDNY BANKRUTCY JUDGE MARTIN GLENN 28 USC 455 AND OTHER

SGI, hereinafter the Debtors, herein, filed for Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Protection on April 1, 2009 several months after emerging from a prior Ch. 11 case.

More importantly, however, is that SGI’s filing in Ch. 11 on April 1, 2009 came within 6 days of the filing of a formal SEC complaint by myself against the Intel Corporation announcing a Trillion Dollar fraud to the SEC also involving Debtors SGI as well thru a Company which was mutually owned by Intel and SGI along with Lockheed Martin called Real3d Inc of Orlando, Florida.

That company Real3d Inc. is at the heart and central of a host of investigations and complaints as well as having been under signed NDA with myself and the Iviewit technologies dating back to 1998 or so.
The alleged “sales” transactions between Intel, the Debtors SGI, and Lockheed Martin involving Real3d Inc. were expressly made a part of the Formal SEC Complaint filed on March 25, 2009, 6 days before the SGI bankruptcy on April 1, 2009.
As referenced in my Emergency Motion filed April 9, 2009, In House General Counsel for Debtors SGI Evelyn Ramirez was expressly placed on notice of the formal SEC Intel Real3d Inc and related complaint on March 25, 2009 just days before the Ch. 11 filing herein.
Despite this express notice on March 25, 2009, the April 1, 2009 Ch. 11 filing wholly failed to List the claims of Eliot Bernstein and related claims herein amounting to a Fraud in filing by SGI upon which THIS Court, SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, was duly noticed.

SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn was further upon direct Notice as of April 9, 2009 with my Emergency filing of the existence of ongoing and open investigations involving multiple federal offices including at the USPTO where Harry Moatz, Director of the OED of the USPTO and a federal official had specifically directed me to file Fraud against the USPTO.

Further, Moatz assembled a team of patent office officials to work with myself to file to remove all former counsel from the applications and respond to outstanding issues to move the IP into a suspended status.

After review of the allegations, the Commissioner of Patents then Suspended various Patent applications herein pending investigation relating to the Trillion Dollar Technologies at issue. Inventor change forms filed to change the fraudulent inventors and certain IP that has falsified inventors were not changeable without an Act of Congress to change existing USPTO privacy policies, Senator Dianne Feinstein has been reviewing these matters, as well as, members of the House Judiciary Committee.

SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn was further placed on express notice of actions by the Office of Inspector General Glenn A. Fine of the US DOJ, pending matters with the OPR of the FBI and the federal whistleblower case of Christine Anderson now heading to trial in the Southern District of NY which my Amended Complaint at the US District Court was marked legally “related” to by District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin.

SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn was further on direct notice that the Debtors SGI had simultaneously moved at the time of filing Ch. 11 on April 1, 2009 to simultaneously Employ as Special Counsel the law firm of Davis Polk Wardell (DPW) and Ropes and Gray, LLP by an application filed on such date by Ropes and Gray, LLP including a Declaration by William Kelly of DPW and that DPW was simultaneously representing the Lockheed Martin Corporation and SGI,

the Debtors herein, both of whom were Equity owners in Real3d Inc which was under signed NDA with my technologies and at the heart of my complaints and investigations herein.
Most shockingly, the Declaration of DPW attorney William Kelly places Mr. Kelly as an Inside Officer at SGI during ALL of the Relevant initial years of the Technologies theft with SGI and Real3d Inc. and later as Outside counsel for SGI while at DPW who simultaneously represents Lockheed Martin, the other Company with Intel at the heart of the Technology thefts with Real3dInc and violations of signed NDAs.
Thus, Clear Facial Conflicts appeared on the Records and Dockets of these proceedings certainly as of the date of my Emergency Motion filing on April 9, 2009 and thus SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn should be charged with knowledge of such conflicts as of at least April 9, 2009.
Additional specified conflicts made in writing prior to the Sept. 15, 2009 hearing which have been knowingly, deliberately and intentionally disregarded as part of the wall of conflicts machinery of RICO activity in legal proceedings include DPW further simultaneously representing Lockheed, SGI owners in Real3d Inc, while also simultaneously representing the Financial Accountants KPMG employed by SGI in this Ch. 11 bankruptcy while further representing other major companies under NDA with my technologies such as CIBC and Morgan Stanley creating conflict within conflict herein.
It is noted for Historical reference at this time that the Formal SEC complaint filed in March of 2009 expressly referenced failures to follow FASB No. 5 and similar Accounting Rules in this Trillion dollar fraud. As of the filing of my Emergency Motion on April 9, 2009, the Nation ( United States ) has heard almost daily reports of Financial Fraud and related investigations after the collapse of Wall Street, the $65 Billion plus Madoff fraud, and $8Billion Stanford fraud and more while Davis Polk Wardell simultaneously represents multiple players in the Wall Street debacle and most interestingly Recruited and Hired back to DPW former head of Enforcement at the SEC Linda Chatman Thomsen who left the SEC under fire for the failures that lead to the $65Billion Madoff fraud. Such facts involving the Madoff and SEC and Linda Chatman Thomsen matter were of such public knowledge that SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn should be presumed to have taken judicial notice herein. Published sources claim that Linda Thomsen was recruited back to DPW in April 2009 shortly after my filings herein.
Many threads tie together several of these financial schemes with the Iviewit technologies and companies, including Madoff, Dreier and Stanford, as pled in my federal RICO case, fully incorporated herein by reference, US 2nd Circ. Docket No. ( 08-4873-cv ) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. and USDC SDNY Docket No. ( 07cv11196 ) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS OF DUE PROCESS REQUIRE
INDEPENDENT AND NEUTRAL JUDGE

As noted by the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an appeal of a case coming out of Operation Greylord, a massive FBI investigation into Judicial corruption in Cook County of Illinois, the United States Supreme Court “has observed that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); see also McBride, 428 F.3d at 667 (”Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases …”).” See, Guest v McCann, http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/474/474.F3d.926.04-3736.html .
28 USC 455 provides in part as follows: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Disqualification is thus mandatory and shall be compelled where “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn is required under the federal Rules of Judicial Conduct as follows:
“CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the

judiciary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ""

Source of Post and More information
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=76
Question: How Do you Deal with a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft and Billions upon Billions of Liability to Shareholders and States?

Answer: Ignore it and Hope it Just Goes Away.

Crystal L. CoxInvestigative Blogger

Eye on Proskauer Rose

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Top Judge Sets Liberal Course for New York - Jonathan Lippman - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose LLP - Iviewit Technologies - Connections and Affiliations

2011-07-06T22:36:00.000-07:00

"" 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 atwww.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV

Proskauer Rose - Perjured Deposition by Corrupt Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein - MPEG LA Corrupt Patent Pooling.

2011-07-06T22:32:00.000-07:00

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Patent Attorney from Proskauer Rose LLP - Working with MPEG LA. Kenneth Rubenstein Perjured himself in Depositions Regarding the Iviewit Technologies Patents in Which Kenneth Rubenstein was Directly Involved in Derailing the Rightful Inventors to Getting their Rightful Patent.

MPEG LA - with the Help of Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney, Pooled the Technology in patents and well the Iviewit Inventors NEVER got rights or any compensation for the Mult-Trillion Dollar Invention that WE ALL USE.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6 - Final

www.Iviewit.TV
For More on Iviewit

www.ProskauerSucks.com
more on Proskauer Rose Corruption

http://www.kennethrubenstein.com/
more on MPEG LA Corruption and Kenneth Rubenstein
Corrupt Patent Attorney.

posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Proskauer Rose LLP - Billing Discrepancies - Missing Pages and ... More on Proskauer Rose involved in iViewit Technology Theft.

2011-07-06T22:25:00.001-07:00

Proskauer Rose Billing Entries

Proskauer Rose Missing Paid Bills

Iviewit Holdings Missing Page

Iviewit General Corporate Advice

Iviewit General Corporate Advice P16

Iviewit General Corporate Advice - Missing Page

Numbers Done in Different Text Document

Missing Page Number in Different Font

General Corporate Advice P17

Missing Page

Proskauer Rose Lawyers WERE involved in the iViewit Scandal

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Eye on Proskauer Rose

What Does Head Guy at Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Joseph Leccese have to say about Raymond Joao and connections to Proskauer Rose over the Iviewit Scandal ?

2011-07-06T22:21:00.001-07:00

Warner Bros. Signed Non Disclosure Agreements with Iviewit, Warner Violated those Agreements. Warner Signed License and Service Agreements..

2011-07-06T22:19:00.000-07:00

Is the SEC Listening, LOOKING... do they even Care.. or will Mary Schapiro and the SEC just sit and wait for a Multi-Billion to Trillion Dollar Scandal and they say Whoops.. We had NO WAY to Know.. and then Of Course Investigative Blogger, Crystal L. Cox will have to Say What a Crock That is - Because does ANYONE at the SEC know How To work GOOGLE... ??? or any Search Engine Really.. or Possibly READ Complaints... ???

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

So Where is Mary Schapiro on this One ?

jeffrey bewkes

G. Lyon and Debra J. Stanek - WIPO Panel - Crystal L. Cox Blogger Domain Dispute Decision - Proskauer Rose Sucks - Proskauer Rose Law Firm

2011-07-06T19:34:00.001-07:00

"WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Proskauer Rose LLP v. (Ms.) Turner

Case No. D2011-0675

1. The Parties

Complainant is Proskauer Rose LLP of New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Jenifer deWolf Paine, United States of America.

Respondent is (Ms.) Turner of Eureka, Montana, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2011. On April 18, 2011, the Center transmitted by e-mail to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name.

On April 18, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by e-mail to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 27, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 17, 2011.

Respondent did not submit a timely response.
Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 18, 2011. Respondent submitted a Response with the Center on May 20, 2011.

Complainant sought leave to file a supplemental submission to address certain alleged inaccuracies and legal assertions contained in the Response, but the Panel in its discretion chose not to entertain a supplemental submission since its decision ultimately rested on the Complaint (and annexes thereto) itself.

The Center appointed Robert Badgley, Richard G. Lyon and Debra J. Stanek as panelists in this matter on June 22, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is one of the largest law firms in the United States, and has 12 offices globally. Complainant was known for decades as Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn, before changing its name to Proskauer Rose in 1997.

In 2000, Complainant branded itself principally as Proskauer. Complainant has nearly 700 lawyers and is undoubtedly one of the best known law firms in the United States.

Complainant also holds registered trademarks in the name PROSKAUER.

The Domain Name was registered on March 4, 2010. Complainant alleges that while Respondent is the registrant of the Domain Name, the website to which the Domain Name resolves is operated by Crystal Cox. This is not disputed. (Indeed, in an omnibus Response filed in this proceeding and in several companion cases involving domain names including the names of several Proskauer lawyers, the Respondent is listed not as (Ms.) Turner but as Crystal Cox.) For purposes of this proceeding, the Panel regards Respondent and Crystal Cox as interchangeable.

The website to which the Domain Name resolves contains commentary highly critical of the Complainant law firm, as well as several Proskauer lawyers and other individuals.

Respondent describes herself as an “Investigative Blogger,” and it is alleged in the Complaint that Respondent is “parroting Eliot Bernstein, who has been engaged in a bizarre and defamatory campaign against Proskauer Rose and its attorneys for many years – despite losing at every turn.”

By way of background, the Complaint states that in 2007 Bernstein and another plaintiff sued numerous defendants in federal court alleging that the defendants had stolen technology. These defendants are also alleged to have contributed to the Enron bankruptcy and the presidency of George W. Bush.

The Proskauer law firm was among the defendants named in the Bernstein suit. The suit was dismissed in 2008, and the appeal was dismissed in 2010.

According to the Complaint, Respondent also maintains a website at “www.CrystalCox.com” at which further criticism of the Proskauer firm is levied.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant’s main factual contentions are set forth in the Factual Background section above. Complainant argues that it has satisfied all three elements required for relief under the Policy, and seeks a transfer of the Domain Name from Respondent. Complainant’s specific arguments under the Policy will be taken up in the sections below as appropriate.

B. Respondent

Respondent makes many contentions more germane to her ongoing dispute with the Complainant firm and others than to the issues before the Panel. Respondent does, however, dispute that she lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and she disputes that she has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant holds rights in the mark PROSKAUER through registration and use. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the PROSKAUER mark, since the Domain Name incorporates the mark and adds the descriptive term “law firm.” The addition of this descriptive term does not diminish the confusing similarity between the mark and the Domain Name. If anything, the term “law firm” reinforces the confusing similarity, since Complainant is a law firm.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name under the Policy, pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) quoted above.

The Panel majority reaches this conclusion without having to accept or reject any of the assertions made by Respondent at her website.

There is a divergence of opinion among panelists under the Policy who have addressed the question whether a domain name may be legitimately used by a respondent solely as a “gripe site” to levy criticism of a complainant mark owner and/or its products or services. (This is a different, and more difficult, question than the context where the use of a pejorative term in the domain name announces that the visitor to the website is likely to encounter criticism of the complainant.)

A majority of this Panel maintains that the use of the Domain Name here as a genuine “gripe site” vests Respondent with a legitimate interest under paragraph 4(c)(iii). In one of the early decisions in this context, Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research, Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0190, the panel observed:

Although free speech is not listed as one of the Policy’s examples of a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, the list [in paragraph 4(c)] is not exclusive, and the Panel concludes that the exercise of free speech for criticism and commentary also demonstrates a right or legitimate interest in the domain name under Paragraph 4(c)(iii).

The Internet is above all a framework for global communication, and the right to free speech should be one of the foundations of Internet law.

See also Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association v. Paul McCauley, WIPO Case No. D2004-0014 (denying complaint where “Respondent’s website appears to be a classic criticism site” and there was no evidence of intent to derive commercial gain or tarnish complainant’s mark).

In the instant case, Respondent has denied ever making any money from her use of the Domain Name, and there is no evidence in the record to the contrary.

The Domain Name appears to be used solely in sincere pursuit of Respondent’s free speech rights.

Whether the content of the website is actionable under the law for reasons unrelated to the Domain Name itself is not for this Panel to consider.

The Panel unanimously believes that this is not a clear case of cyber squatting which the Policy was designed to address.

Rather, this looks like a protracted and contentious dispute among numerous parties, several of whom are not before the Panel in this proceeding, that has spilled into the arena of Internet domain names.

All parties are free to pursue their respective positions and interests in other fora better suited to consider evidence and grant appropriate relief.

As set forth in his concurring opinion, the Panel member who disagrees with the majority’s reasoning on the legitimacy of criticism sites joins the Panel in finding this dispute better suited for the national courts and in the circumstances of this case not appropriate for resolution under the Policy.

The Panel unanimously finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has not been satisfied by Complainant under the facts in this record.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Because the Panel majority has rejected the Complaint under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), there is no discussion here of alleged bad faith registration or use of the Domain Name.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Robert A. Badgley
Presiding Panelist

Richard G. Lyon
Panelist (Concurring)

Debra J. Stanek
Panelist

Date: June 30, 2011

OPINION CONCURRING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN THE DECISION

Though I agree that the Complaint must be denied, I adhere to my oft-stated views that a criticism site even if entirely noncommercial does not confer upon a domain name holder a right or legitimate interest if the domain name consists solely of the complainant’s (and the target of the criticism) mark.

Those interested in the details of my reasoning may read, among other cases, Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumin, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627 (majority opinion), and Justice for Children v. R neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0175.

Here the Domain Name and mark at issue do not match exactly, but the only difference exacerbates the likelihood of confusion on the part of Internet users by adding a description of Complainant and the services Complainant provides. On the reasoning of the cases cited above, Respondent should not be permitted to appropriate Complainant’s soapbox for her criticism of Complainant.

Resolution of that issue, however, is unnecessary in this proceeding, for in my view the Complaint must be denied on the other ground stated by the Panel.

Complainant and others are battling Respondent and others over a slew of domain names and assorted issues of tort law.

The Response in this case lists some (perhaps all?) of the other individuals engaged in these other proceedings. The Policy itself and Policy precedent do not permit consolidation of these other proceedings under the limited mandate of the Policy; even if consolidation were possible that would do nothing about the charges of defamation (and other torts) and countercharges of harassment (and other torts).

Decisions in this or any of the other Policy proceedings are subject to subsequent challenge in court, where the panels’ findings are not binding. Given the parties’ history, that may well happen here.

Like the Panel, I think it better that all matters be addressed in a forum that has the jurisdiction and competence to do so than that the Policy be stretched, in a case that is not clearly cyber squatting, merely to give one party or the other an edge in the litigation that will inevitably follow. In these circumstances I stand with the panel in Rudy Rojas v. Gary Davis, WIPO Case No. D2004-1081: “a plague o’ both your houses.”

Richard G. Lyon
Panelist (concurring)

Date: June 30, 2011 "

Source of WIPO Proskauer Rose Post

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-0675

Note to Post: Ms. Turner has nothing to Do with my Posts or my Issues with Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Ms. Turner was Simply on my Godaddy Account with me and Never Posted anything to do With Proskauer Rose.

Also Note To Post: I Ask is a "oft-stated views" Statement from Richard G. Lyon really appropriate or is Richard G. Lyon acting in conspiracy with Proskauer Rose Law Firm to Harass, Defame, and Conspire against me to hide the Truth about a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft?

This "oft-stated views" Statement by Richard G. Lyon is uncalled for and is further WIPO defamation against me as my site exposes the FACTS on the iViewit Case of which Richard G. Lyon is obviously not familiar with and has no right in his "oft-stated views" in a supposed "Impartial" Panel Review and Decision.

Richard G. Lyon accuses investigative blogger Crystal L. Cox, me.. of my sites being a target of Critisizm when in FACT the blogs are sites to promote inventors rights and to protect further victims of Proskauer Rose Law Firm and Other Attorneys such as Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in massive whitewashing and scandals in the State of New York and Florida where the Wall of Corruption is impossible for most to climb, I give them a voice .. for FREE.
Proskauer Rose is involved in Corruption and wants me to Go Away, I believe Proskauer Rose was involved in an attempted murder of the iViewit inventors, I also believe that the Proskauer Rose Attorneys Steven Krane and Stephen Kaye did not die of natural causes, in My Opinion they simply new to much about the theft of a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology and were dealt with... Like that Movie the "Firm" which is Said to be based on the Greenberg Traurig Law Firm, which is working with Proskaer Rose on the "Healthcare" Fiasco. And Greenberg Traurig was also involved in the iViewit Technology theft and with Proskauer Rose, Greenberg Traurig is named in an SEC Complaint and Federal RICO Lawsuit.

My Sites are the Real, True Story with links to proof and Richard G. Lyon has no right to state that they are critical sites, gripe sites and not legitimate media - as I am MEDIA, defined as Media and protected Under Shield Laws, Ant-Slapp Laws and I am singled out in Selective Prosecution just because I am better at Internet Marketing then the other blogs, news, and media that "gripe" - tell the Proskauer Rose story that is news according to them...

I find the stories online and I post them as most blogger do and link to my source and oftentimes give my Opinion yet Proskauer Rose Accuses me of "parroting" and single out my blogs because they expose one of the Biggest Law Firms in the World.

Just my "oft-stated view" here but I say supposed Impartial WIPO Panelist Richard G. Lyon is Full of Shit to say the least.. and Soapbox is not what I have.. i have REAL NEWS, real facts, Real story.. and Proskauer Rose pays sites like SuperLawyers.com and Lawdragon and others like them.. - Proskauer Pays for Good Reviews and kicks the ass of Bloggers who expose the TRUTH about Proskauer Rose Attorneys..

Proskauer Rose also used WIPO to whine about their Case with Eliot Bernstein as if that had ANYTHING to do with the Stealing of My Intellectual Property....

Proskauer Rose and I will be meeting in a Court of Law Soon, and as this Major Law Firm will continue to fight to hide the Truth about a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology theft that ruined the quality of life of the inventors and has caused Massive Shareholder Fraud to Shareholders of Intel Corp, Warner Bros., AOL, IBM, Enron, Blockbuster, SONY, Lockheed Martin, Ernst and Young and many more tech companies and financial companies.

You Can See from this "WIPO Decision" that they suggest another Venue, perhaps a federal court and well I agree, a Court somewhere in all the land that Proskauer Rose Does not Control or have some Cronie on the State Bar, or as a Judge or some other pay offs and favors to get an unfair decision in Proskauer Rose's Favor... Do your Homework Folks, read the Cases, talk to the Victims, don't blame the MEDIA.. which is me, just because I am not one of those big chain media sources does not mean i am not the REAL NEWS... i am in the top of the search engines for everything to do with this story, and I get tips and information weekly, i have posted document.. find the Truth for yourself and don't listen to the Gibberish of Richard G. Lyon as he sides with the Billionaire Law Firm Proskauer Rose over the Inventors Lives that they have ruined..

There are links below for more on the Proof of Proskauer Rose involved in the Iviewit Technolgy Theft here are Research Links for You - not really "Gripe Sites" but more like the Real News about the IViewit Scandal that Proskauer Rose is trying to hide.

Proskauer Rose will now fight me in court and I ask you the Public to read the case your self... as I am Standing up for the Rights of the Inventors at the Cost of my own Time, Money and Quality of Life and have never taken a dime from anyone involved... I simply See Victims in Mass over the iViewit Technology Theft and I made a move to use my POWERFUL internet marketing skills to promote the rights of the IViewit Inventors.

Links on the Iviewit Story

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm

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

http://www.alexisdevane.com/

http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/search/label/Proskauer%20Rose

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.perjureddeposition.com/

Proskauer Rose Sucks

Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg desperate to hide the Truth about Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg involved in iViewit Technology Theft.

2011-06-29T19:58:00.000-07:00

The Hypocrits Liars and Thieves at Proskauer Rose Law Firm seem to thing that ReputationDefender will do such a great job making an Elite International Law Firm Look like children on a school project with this internet thing. As ReputationDefender gets DUMB Domain Names and puts out fluff as if those Researching Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg can't look at the 1200 documents of FACT that Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg are involved in a 13 Trillion Dollar Scandal of which has caused massive shareholder fraud.

Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg have also used WIPO ( World Intellectual Property Organization ) to STOP my Investigative blogs on Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg, telling the Truth about Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg .

Do you have a Tip on Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg ?

If you have a Tip on Proskauer Rose LLP or Gregg Mashberg please email your Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg tip to me Crystal@CrystalCox.com .

Here is the Fluff on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm by ReputationDefender - Don't Believe the Hype on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm Look at the Links at the Bottom on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm and do your homework on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm, if any of my links on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm are down, email me for documents on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm first hand - Crystal@CrystalCox.com - Real Research on the TRUTH about Gregg Mashberg of Prokauer Rose LLP Law Firm.

"About Gregg Mashberg

Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose currently co-heads the leading New York law firm’s Securities Litigation &; Enforcement Group Experienced in appearing before trial and appellate courts throughout the United States, Gregg Mashberg has been admitted to the United States Supreme Court, as well as to the Second, Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Eastern and Southern Districts of the U.S. District Court of New York. With wide-ranging expertise in many areas of law, Mashberg holds an impressive record of successful litigation.

Recently, in his work for Proskauer Rose, Gregg Mashberg succeeded in winning a summary judgment for a prominent British corporation in a commercial dispute, which resulted in the dismissal of a complaint seeking $100 million in damages. Additionally, Mashberg has also secured a $3 million federal jury verdict for a client in a stockholders’ derivative action resulting from a Wall Street brokerage house closing its doors. Furthermore, in addition to his corporate litigation work with Proskauer Rose, Gregg Mashberg continues his practice in public law from the early days of his career as an Assistant Chief of the General Litigation Division of the City of New York’s Law Department by representing various city organizations facing law suits. For example, Mashberg successfully defended the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority against a legal challenge to the organization’s decision to increase tolls and fares in 2003.

Moreover, Gregg Mashberg has also worked to extend medical services in New York City by representing St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Center in an Article 78 proceeding that sought to overturn the decision made by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to permit the medical center from demolishing a building located in the Greenwich Village Historic District.

The demolition was sought in order to permit construction of a new $850 million expansion for the hospital. A graduate of the NYU Law School, Gregg Mashberg was elected to the Buffalo Law Review where he completed his first year of legal study."

Source of Proskauer Rose Gregg Mashberg Post

http:// gregg mashberg .word press.com/ about/

Proskauer Rose Gregg Mashberg

http://www.antitrustviolations.com/2010/09/gregg-m-mashberg-covers-up-massive.html

http://www.federalricolawsuit.com/2010/10/proskauer-rose-llp-gregg-m-mashberg.html

Proskauer Rose Involved in Fraud on the US Patent Office? Is Proskauer Rose Joseph Leccese Really Looking into the iViewit Case?

2011-04-29T20:08:00.000-07:00

"MPEG - Proskauer Rose LLP Stealing Inventions - A fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Eliot I. Bernstein on Sunday, January 22nd, 2006 @ 09:21PM www.iviewit.tvMy name is Eliot Bernstein and I am one of the inventors of the Iviewit inventions.

Many of the quotes here are from me and the proof for many of these claims can be found at the www.iviewit.tv website. Simply go to left navigation bar and click on the Supreme Court button and then click on either Appendix C or Exhibit Gallery.

Although voluminous in size, the exhibits are chalk full of evidence and information regarding the ongoing investigations. Also, much can be learned at the Iviewit blog at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .

In response to this post, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLPtook invention disclosures from Iviewit inventors and patented those concepts into their management referral, Brian Utley's name. Rubenstein also contracted Raymond Joao at the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel to file the applications, while Rubenstein and Proskauer handled all of the other intellectual property work, including Rubenstein acting as a board member and opining to many investors on the inventions.

Joao worked at the law firm that Kenneth Rubenstein was at immediately prior to his learning of theIviewit inventions, MLGWS and then after learning of the inventions,Rubenstein instantly jumped to Proskauer, a firm that had no other intellectual property department to speak of and had been a real estate firm since the 1800's.

Proskauer Rose had already been retained and began work for Iviewit prior to Rubenstein leaving Meltzer. In fact, Kenneth Rubenstein and Joao were initially represented as Proskauer attorneys, although they were still at Meltzer. Joao filed patents into his own name while retained by Iviewit to file patents as Rubenstein’s lackey. Joao’s patents contained many of the ideas he and Kenneth Rubenstein learned from the Iviewit inventors, the disclosures and business plans of Iviewit.

It is absurd to think that a patent attorney could file any patents in his name without a thorough conflict waiver from all clients and approval from the patent bar. History has never had a case where the patent attorney ran out and filed a blizzard of patents all crossing into his clients patent applications. Joao was also part of an elaborate scheme to move the patents out ofIviewit and into companies that Proskauer set up that had similar and identical names to the Iviewit companies.

Yet, the shareholder of those companies appears to be Proskauer Rose and others, not the true Iviewit shareholders or inventors.

Iviewit shareholders, including the SBA were totally unaware that these similar companies had been set up and unawarethat that similar patents were being filed into these companies with the false inventor BrianUtley, false owners and assignees.

Joao was discovered patenting ideas into his name and other dubious behavior and he was fired for his actions. Proskauer and Utley referred William Dick of Foley and Lardner to replace Joao, Utley stated that Dick was the IBM Far East patent attorney and his very close personal friend.

The original Proskauer attorney, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq.(recently arrested in Del Ray Beach, FL for DUI with bodily injury) failed to disclose that he, Utley and Dick were involved in intellectual property crimes from Utley's former employ, Diamond Turf Equipment owned by Monte Freidkin of Boca Raton.

Friedkin discovered that patents were walking out the door to Utley's sole (souless) name and fired him. It was not learned until Wheeler andUtley's deposition and Dick's response to the Virginia Bar that the three of them had been involved in the crime.

Wheeler set up the company, Dick wrote the patents from Utley's employer secretly into Utley's name at home and Utley got in and stole the inventions from his employer.

This is the same type of scam that they instituted on Iviewit and again appear to be failing achieving their ends. Dick was Joao's replacement and since it was never disclosed by any of them, the fact of their prior past patent theft attempt, Iviewit was dumbfounded to find this prior history out after learning they were stealing Iviewit inventions.

Moreover, Wheeler and Proskauer submitted a resume on Utley that claimed that Diamond Turf went on to be a huge success do to Utley's inventions, when the truth was that the company was instantly closed by Friedkin after he found Utley stealing from his company while acting as the President of Friedkin’s company.

Utley failed to disclose this, Wheeler and Proskauer never disclosed this when Iviewit retained them and Dick and Foley failed to inform us of Dick's past with this group.

This is a criminal organization of patent thieves, they have a history and they are a danger to inventors, good lawyers everywhere and the United States and foreign countries patent systems.

I am not against patent attorneys filing patents as long as there is a hefty review by the patent department or the USTPO OED, to investigate if those attorney inventions lay claim on any client inventions they may have represented or as in our case misrepresented.

It is very dangerous for patent attorneys to be patenting inventions for themselves while representing client interests, and the obvious collusion amongst patent attorneys to work together to steal each others clients inventions remains a gaping hole.

Yet these guys filed false oaths on applications in others names for inventions they learned while retained by the Iviewit inventors,no excuse can be had for this, this is plain theft, fraud on the patent office, fraud on the Iviewit inventors, the Iviewit shareholders and all the EPO foreign offices and the history of the world and invention.

This is not even close to a patent attorney having a novel idea (although that seems far fetched as attorneys are not typically inventive) and then patenting it in his name with no client involved. Joao has stated that some of his inventions were prior to ours and that Iviewit was in fact infringing on his inventions (he claimed this to the New York Supreme CourtAppellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee), yet Joao failed to seek waivers or disclose this in writing or verbally to anyone seems absurd.

I find it further disgusting that MPEG patent inclusion is controlled by a single person, Kenneth Rubenstein, where the temptation is all to obvious.

Patent pooling schemes have been killed historically by the Justice Department for the very reasons that Iviewit complains of, anti-competitive monopolistic practices that violate Sherman and Clayton and almost every antitrust practice. Patent pooling schemes created by lawyers to make money as middlemen also seems to violate ethics.

For instance, how canProskauer and Rubenstein profit from MPEG as counsel for MPEG (as Rubenstein discloses in his deposition at the Iviewit Exhibit gallery) and at the same time take invention disclosure as inventors counsel under Proskauer for review when the patent concepts could completely render MPEG useless, as the Iviewit inventions do, destroying Rubenstein and now PRoskauers pooling schemes?

How can Rubenstein review Iviewit patents for MPEG and at the same time give Iviewit unbiased advice on their patents or control their fate by inclusion or exclusion, while Proskauer and Rubenstein are direct benefactors of the MPEGLA pool profits?

The conflict is as wide as the Grand Canyon, no China Wall, in fact an open door for crime to occur, crimes that violate Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 inventor protections by those entrusted to protect those rights as part of the patent bar. The obvious is happening here, MPEG andProskauer have found a way to review patents as patent counsel and then steal them as patent poolers looking to profit from others inventions.

The first complaint that was filed at the patent office was in an invention format as a joke, not a joke to laugh at, it was appropriately titled, "System and Method for Committing Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Iviewit Inventors". I wonder if the patent department will approve it? lol... This is the only thing that Joao,Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Dick, Foley and Lardner, Brian Utley and others accused, ever invented.

Please feel free to contact me for further information or an interview.
wEliot I. BernsteinInventorIviewit Technologies, Inc.
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://patentgate.blogspot.com "
r
Source of Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/

Posted Here By
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

Proskauer Rose LLP Gregg M. Mashberg Knows FULL Well that Stephen Lamont has NO Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

2011-04-29T10:42:00.001-07:00

Proskauer Rose Law Firm Knows that Stephen Lamont has NO LEGAL Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

So why is the Corrupt Law Firm of Proskauer Rose Responding to an Illegal Filing by Stephen Lamont on Behalf of Iviewit Technologies?

Could it be that Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose is doing this to deliberately fraud the courts, as Stephen Lamont is VERY Connected to Judith Kaye, ex-supreme court judge who was married to Proskauer Rose Partner Stephen Kaye - and Judith Kaye use to Work at IBM and is connected with William Dick who also use to work at IBM and is connected to the Iviewit Patent Suppression and iViewit Invention Theft.

So it seems to me that New York Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose Law Firm is deliberately frauding the courts and the motive seems to me to be to cause further stalling of the Iviewit Technology patent and to further prolong the Federal RICO Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose, the Criminal Complaint and SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose and to Protect the Corrupt MPEG LA to keep making Billions a year on a technology that Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP knew he had stolen for MPEG LA over a Decade Ago.

So why is this all going on Right Now?

What is P. Stephen Lamont up to with Gregg M. Mashberg and the Pro Se Party over there at the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?

Eliot Bernstein did Not initiate this at this Time, P. Stephen Lamont did and P. Stephen Lamont has No Legal Right to Speak for Eliot Bernstein, nor does P. Stephen Lamont have a right to speak for the iViewit Investors or the iViewit Inventors.

For Proskauer Rose LLP to Continue in this scam, they are blatantly playing games on Judge Shira Scheindlin and making a mockery out of the New York Courts. Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose is Doing This Deliberately to confuse the issue and to keep Stephen Lamont involved somehow. All the Motives here are Unclear, and well it is not like YOU can Complain to the New York Bar - as Proskauer Rose LLP controls the New York Bar.

Stephen Lamont is Under Investigation for Fraudulently Representing iViewit and other Suspected Illegal Activities and though Gregg M. Mashberg and Proskauer Rose LLP KNOW this, still Gregg M. Mashberg files this JOKE on the New York Courts, Why?

Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLP

Just How Corrupt is Gregg M. Mashberg - I mean Come on Stephen Lamont ILLEGALLY Files a "Bernstein Vs. Appellate Division First Department..." and Even though Gregg Mashberg, Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney KNOWS that P. Stephen Lamont has No Right to Do so, Still Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP has a RESPONSE Delivered?

A Hand Delivered Response from Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Proskauer Rose LLP, Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg RESPONDS to P. Stephen Lamont's Fraudulent Court Filings on Behalf of iViewit when Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLPAttorrney knows that Stephen Lamont has no Right to be filing anything on behalf of iViewit.

Proskauer Rose LLP, Gregg M. Mashberg Attorneys Pro Se for Proskauer Rose LLP
and Attorneys for Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane and and the Estate of Steven Rackow Kaye .. and "Respectfully Submitted" - that is BULL - it is Lies and Cover Ups and no Respect Intended..

The Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is Still representing themselves in the Iviewit Stolen Technology Case. Odd that 2 of the Above Attorneys have Died, and they are VERY Guilty of Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent. And yet still Proskauer Ross LLP seems to Run the New York Justice System and Get Their Way.

There is Tons of Proof on Proskauer Rose's Guilt in the Stealing of the Iviewit Technologies Invention and in Proskauer Roses Law Firm using this to Entice Enron, which led to the Collapse of Enron and Billions Lost to Investors. Which is the Same thing that Will Soon happen at Intel Corp. , Time Warner, Warner Bros., SONY, Lockheed Martin, and More..

So what is Gregg M. Mashberg and the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm Really Up to with this, the Latest Stunt in the Decade Old Saga of Proskauer Rose Patent Thieves for MPEG LA.

Click Here for Eliot Bernstein iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Stephen Kaye, MPEG LA and many others...

Got a Tip on Gregg M. Mashberg or Proskauer Rose LLP ?
eMail me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Christopher C. Wheeler, Matthew Triggs - Proskauer Rose Frauds the Florida Supreme Court. What is Proskauer Rose man in charge Joseph Leccese Doing About it ?

2011-04-29T08:27:00.000-07:00

Christopher Clark Wheeler - Proskauer Rose LLP Corrupt Patent Attorney, Protected by Proskauer Rose Law Firm, the Florida and New York Supreme Court.

" Take a moment to honor the original conspirator, Christopher Clark Wheeler, one of the main suspects and ringleaders of the crime who has subsequently been charged with a Felony Driving Under the Influence Charge with Injury making his credibility as an attorney further mired in crimes.

An arrest warrant was been issued in that matter, click Wheeler's picture on the left for the Delray Beach Police Department report or this link -Wheeler's arrest report or this one for the PD blotter.

So where his more serious crimes, like fraud on a whole bunch of government agencies and foreign nations now landed Iviewit and its shareholders at the United States Supreme Court to present our case for violations of public office by Chris Wheeler and Matthew Triggs, Wheeler going with this further public nuisance crime upon his head.

Christophe Wheeler, the main protagonist, the first attorney to revel the inventions and be disclosed the processes, is found recklessly endangering lives, now drunk and a true danger to himself and society.

In addition, the Petition filed by Iviewit contained allegations and evidence that linked the President of the Florida Bar and others to conflicts.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered a response to the Petition by the Florida Bar and what was set forth in response was perhaps the most incompetent legal response (Illiterate Florida Bar Response to Petition) ever by the Florida Bar, authored by Eric Turner - Chief Branch Officer, and Eric Turner completed law school.

Authored with a complaint filed against him, which should have precluded his response in conflict, yet Turner so stressed out writes a letter that is legally and intelligibly incoherent, even addressing the Florida Supreme Court improperly and this is a Chief Counsel of The Florida Bar.

For this letter alone Eric Turner should have been sent back to law school.

Turners response fails to address any of the allegations in the Petition as demanded by the SCF order and instead states that the Florida Barreview work was done well.

The problem, the review was done and included responses tendered byMatthew Triggs as attorney for his partner Wheeler, while Matthew Triggs was in a confirmed black-out period at the Florida Bar where he was unable to represent any party due to his public office position with the Florida Bar.

Iviewit filed with the SCF a rebuttal identifying the Florida Bar failure to address the questions in the Petition and asking for a default judgment and also due to Turner's response failing to properly identify parties including the SCF, Rebuttal Response.

Further, the exhibits in the illiterate response done by Eric Turner which contain the Florida Bar reviewers (no investigation was undertaken) assessment of the Wheeler complaint, are all invalid, as Wheeler's responses where all tendered by Matthew Triggs in conflict but what is interesting to note is how each reviewer attempts to claim that they found no wrong doing or that Proskauer Rose was not patent counsel.

Without any investigation, the Florida Bar is not allowed by their own rules to make any opinions in favor of either party and may only decline to undertake investigation.

Yet, the conflicts, unknown and concealed by Christopher Wheeler andMatthew Triggs had worked there magic and influenced the Florida Bar to attempt to write exculpatory language on behalf of Proskauer Rose, one wonders what the cost of buying off justice cost.

The Florida Bar acting more as a defacto attorney protection agency versus a consumer organization, where even after being caught inconflicts and violations of public office - attorneys remain not prosecuted and where citizen complaints to The Florida Bar have been denied being filed quite inapposite the intent of the Florida Constitution in creating a bar and inapposite of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.

When citizens are denied the right to complain about elected officials violating clearly established laws inapposite the rules of procedure, it is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.

Shocking but true, just look up the case and watch it as it now is up for appeal at the United States Supreme Court and there is more corruption following, this time a similar series of conflicts of interest, improprieties and abuses of public office in New York, where court ordered investigations have been derailed and other miscellaneous fodder. "

Source of Above
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm

Proskauer Rose LLP - Chris Wheeler Crimes

Exhibit 4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board

Exhibit 19 – How to steal an applet, first act, Brian invention at home is 2nd attempt after this is foiled

******

Wheeler response to The initial small form Florida Bar complaint

Iviewit rebuttal to Wheeler response to The Florida Bar #1

some wheeler perjury to florida bar goes well with dui and somehow evades detection

******

matthew triggs - florida bar complaint - florida bar and florida supreme court refuse to docket formally the complaint although it has affirmed violations of triggs public office as a member of the florida bar and conflicting his representation of wheeler. currently under review at the united states supreme court.

supreme court of florida - iviewit original filing

florida bar response to supreme court order to respond to petition

fails to deal with any substantive issues of the petition and as such stands in default. they claim to have done a good review to the supreme court and where such review contained conflicted responses from triggs, that would have invalidated the prior reviews.

response is unintelligible and addresses parties incorrectly such as (this court) when more appropriately (this Court) and other such defined term problems.

iviewit rebuttal to florida bar non-response - supreme court of florida
florida bar response - another turner classic

Of interest -- inventor Bernstein has since discovery of the inventions told of how the inventions came to be as coming in dreams as gifts from G0D to help your children save the planet. This makes the crimes even more insidious, to read of this fascinating truth of how these inventions came to be visit the inventor.

More on the Corrupt Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler
http://www.christophercwheeler.com/

Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in Major Video Technology Theft. Is Joseph Leccese, Head of Proskauer Rose doing anything?

2011-04-29T08:23:00.000-07:00

"MPEG LA involved in Major Video Technology Theft. MPEG LA LLC stole the Iviewit Video Technology

Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General.

More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement. Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?

June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General

" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison

1285 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10019-6064

Dear Mr. Ramos:

This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.

You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.

I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats

The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.

(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.

The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,

(2) established the Standard Specifications.

(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.

II. The Proposed Arrangement

A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders

(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:

(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);

(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and

(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.

(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.

(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.

(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."

(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."

(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.

(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.

(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"

(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.

(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.

(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.

(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.

(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.

(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.

(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."

(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."

(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.

(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.

(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."

(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)

Full Letter and Source of Post

http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm

Save and Print the Above for Your Records.

Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY knwo that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.

No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.

More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

GOOG, MPEG LA LLC,

Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose Perjures his Deposition, and is involved in Major Patent Fraud and Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose LLP Does Nothing ?

2011-04-29T08:19:00.000-07:00

"Enter William Dick of Foley to Replace Raymond Joao - Misrepresentation, Fraud, Lies, Deceit, IBM Connections - Kenneth Rubenstein Corruption -

"Once Raymond Joao was under “investigation” by Proskauer Rose he was then terminated from service by them, Proskauer instantly found an old friend of Christopher Wheeler’s, a one William Dick of Foley and Christopher Wheeler vouched for his friend William Dick to the Board of Directors.

William Dick, according to Christopher C. Wheeler was IBM’s Patent Counsel for IBM’s far eastern patent pool.

William Dick was also friends and former coworker at IBM and then again with Friedkin with another of Christopher Wheeler’s referrals to the Iviewit companies, Brian G. Utley, who was appointed President of the Iviewit companies whereby Christopher Wheeler had presented afalsified resume for Brian Utley to the Board, Shareholders and Investors, a falsified resume in several key ways.

First, the resume presented to the Board by Christopher Wheeler andProskauer Rose claimed Brian Utley was a college graduate, in deposition Brian Utley utterly denies ever graduating.

The most important fraud on the resume though was on the point of his past employmentwhereby it stated that due to Brian Utley’s innovations for the company, Diamond Turf Equipment, owned by Monte Friedkinhad grown to be one of the best and largest companies of its kind due to Brian Utley’s running that company.

Per Monte Friedkin, it was more like ruining the company, as when Monte Friedkin found Brian Utley, William Dick and Christopher Wheeler stealing Inventions from him, he fired Utley and closed the shop entirely down taking a several million dollar loss.

Major misrepresentation of Brian Utley by Proskauer’s Christopher C. Wheeler but even more astonishing is that the same crew of Brian Utley, Christopher Wheeler and William Dick were involved in the Monte Friedkin frauds.

Many perjured statements regarding these events were submitted to official investigatory bodies and courts and evidence of these perjurious statements have been included in the Exhibit and Linkage Section under the individuals names.

Prior to learning of their seedy past, which had been misrepresented to the Board, Investors and Shareholders, as neither Williamm Dick nor Christopher Wheeler disclosed their past historytogether at Friedkin’s with Brian G. Utley, nor did they share the information of the failed invention theft with anyone else.

Of course, if they did disclose the attempted theft, nobody would have retained them; everyone was in the dark as they handed out falsified resumes and financials to Investment Bankers, Iviewit Investors, Iviewit Shareholders, including the SBA and more.

Foley entered the scene under similar false pretenses with Christopher Wheeler vouching for William Dick’s integrity and again failing to notify anyone of their prior failed invention theft.

Instantly, Foley identified a mass of problems with Raymond Joao’s filing but claimed they could correct everything, such as missing assignments, missing inventors, missing patent disclosure information, etc.

Again, I myself and the Iviewit Board and Shareholders trusted yet another large law firmin the IP field referred again by Proskauer Rose and this time Foley assured Investors, Investment Banks and Shareholders that they could and would fix the problems with Raymond Joao’s filing and so they were retained, again, Proskauer’s Kenneth Rubenstein as oversight.

After several months, Brian Utley came to me and asked me to sign blank patent applications for filings the inventors had not reviewed, Brian Utley claiming they needed to be filed that day, which again was false, as they were not due for several days, Brian Utley persisting that the Inventors had no time for review and that he did not have the IP filing applications to review before signing and could not get them.

Noticing several large patent binders on his desk I went to pick them up with another founder and inventor of the Iviewit technologies, James Frazier Armstrong, and what was discovered inside them was both astonishing and criminal.

Inside the binders were intellectual property filings with now Brian Utley as sole inventor of technologies including for example an application titled “Zoom and Pan on a Digital Camera” and another“Zoom Image Design Applet” both inventions of which Brian Utley was not even employed at the time of invention.

Further, Brian Utley replaced original inventors on original patent filings, those filed incorrectly by Raymond Joao, Foley fraudulently replacing inventors Zakirul Shirajee and Jude Rosario with Brian Utley on filings, again Brian Utley was nowhere near the scene of invention.

Foley now found continuing the Joao fraud it appeared although at the time hard for almost anyone to believe.

Further, there were now two or more sets of patents, which almost were identical but were wholly different, as one set missed the inventions entirely and was fraught with bad math and major errors, the others with Utley’s name seemed to be the broader and more correct filings.

In fact, some of the IP found in the binders taken from Brian Utley were for Intellectual Properties already filed at US Patent Office without anyone’s knowledge, including the Inventors, Shareholders or the Board of Directors, patents that were solely ( or soullessly ) in Utley’s name, being sent to his home address, not Iviewit’s and more.

Almost identical to the Monte Friedkin theft whereby William Dick wrote Friedkin’s inventions into Brian Utley’s name and filed them into a corporation incorporated byProskauer Rose and Christopher Wheeler, outside Friedkin’s employ and without Friedkin’s knowledge or consent.

These fraudulent applications led to immediate taped meetings regarding the fraudulent IP with Foley and Proskauer Partners, Board Members and Shareholders where it was further learned that assignments were missing, inventors were wrong and the patent applications remained filled with errors, I submit to the Committee under the Exhibits and Linkage section of the prepared statement a sample of the IP errors, contained in William Dick’s Virginia Bar Complaint Rebuttal.

Foley was to correct everything in time for the filings, the inventors then corrected the patents, and yet Foley still filed the fraudulent patents with the bad math and other fraudulent information, discarding the inventors’ changes and continuing the fraud.

The cat was almost out of the bag at that time, yet it was almost impossible to believe that these were crimes and not some type of mistakes versus part of an organized criminal syndicate of lawyers and law firms attempting to steal inventions, which only later and still today are being unraveled. At the same time, other information indicating fraud began to surface.

The Arthur Andersen Audit, The Enron Broadband Attempted Technology Transfers,the Collapse of both Enron and Arthur Andersen and the Ties to the Iviewit Inventions:
Another hidden and fraudulent set of events within the Iviewit companies links to Enron Broadband discovered at the same time that Arthur Andersen began a required Audit of the Iviewit Companies performed on behalf of Crossbow Ventures and their corresponding interests of the SBA on their SBIC loans.

Andersen’s Audit discovered identically and similarly named Corporate Shell companies and other misdeeds, as Iviewit also became aware of unauthorized technology transfers taking place by Utley, Dick and Wheeler that included one with Enron Broadband and Blockbuster Video.

Enron Broadband had booked Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in revenue on a future deal with Blockbuster Video to stream full screen full frame video over the Internet, that once the crimes at Iviewit were beginning to be discovered, fell apart overnight. Many of those who fully understand the Enron fraud understand that the Broadband division’s fraud was the “straw that broke the camels back.”

As soon as no technology was to transfer in backdoor secret deals to stream or download the videos due to the investigations, and the scandal was unraveling quickly from the audits findings, everything Enron Broadband and Enron had done had to become extinct overnight. Problem, they already had booked the revenue having forgotten the age-old proverb, “Don't count your chickens before they are hatched”, as greed often blinds the best and brightest too.

I note as an aside that the founder of Blockbuster, Wayne Huizenga and his Son, were the seed investors in the Iviewit companies brought to Iviewit by Proskauer and now named Defendants in my Federal Lawsuit.

Instantly, almost overnight, with discovery of the Iviewit fraud, both Andersen who was in the midst of the Iviewit audit that was revealing fraud and Enron vanished in scandal, in a trail of criminal document shredding to cover their tracks.

Seeing the danger they were in from the exposure of the crimes, our trusted advisors, our retained lawyers and accountants, then began a document shredding of the Iviewit files to rid the evidence of the illegal technology transfers and other evidence revealing their criminal acts.

Similar to what Anderson now describes taking place in the First Department regarding the Cover-Up crimes alleged. According to Iviewit Employees stolen briefcases of cash of investor monies, including the SBA’s money, then used to bribe and attempt to bribe employees to steal proprietary equipment and trade secrets as indicated in one employees written statement contained in the referenced link in my Prepared Statement Submitted to this Committee @http://Iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/SHAREHOLDER%20STATEMENTS%20BOOKMARKED.pdf

Witness testimony on page 10 or found on the Iviewit Homepage under Evidence Link 784. "

Source of Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+Reardon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Proskauer Sucks
Also Check Out www.Iviewit.TV for More on this Proskauer Rose Deceit...
Kenneth Rubenstein
The William Dick Bar Rebuttal from Eliot Bernsten is at the Link Below.

William Dick submitted documents which the patent office claimed where fraudulent which led to suspension and investigation.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2003%2012%20William%20Dick%20Virginia%20Bar%20Complaint%20Response%20BOOKM.pdf

More on MPEG LA, Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Kenneth Rubenstein, Foley and Lardner Law Firm, Intel Corp (INTC), Time Warner, Warner Bros, AOL and More Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Video Coding Technology

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

http://www.investigativeblogger.com/search/label/MPEG%20LA

Posted here by

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com