Intel Shareholder Fraud over iViewit Technologies Still Undisclosed by Intel CEO Paul Otellini

"iViewit Technologis SEC COMPLAINT against INTEL CORPORATION

White Collar Crime Division and Any and All Compliance Division Heads and Related
Offices:

I, Eliot Bernstein, of ..... Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33434 as the Original Owner and Inventor of key "backbone technologies" for video and imaging as further described herein, am filing this Formal Complaint against Intel Corporation ( Intel ) with United States headquarters located at 2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, Ca, 95054-1459, and bring to your attention ongoing investigations involving multiple federal offices around the country as well as International investigations pertinent in this
matter.

Intel is a primary wrongdoer as a named defendant in a presently Pending Trillion
Dollar international RICO Conspiracy Lawsuit involving the theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property rights as further set out herein.

In addition to liabilities claimed in this lawsuit, are separate direct primary liabilities and obligations from signed agreements including Non Disclosure’s, Strategic Partner Agreements and Licensing Agreements.

Further, on information and belief Intel corporate management including at least the
President, Paul S. Otellini and corporate counsel Bruce D. Sewell, and Stephen R.
Rodgers are also involved in an ongoing and undisclosed massive international Fraud
against the Intel shareholders and investors.

Upon information and belief, the frauds include but are not limited to the failure
to disclose both the lawsuit and the Intellectual Property Infringements in direct violation
of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for
disclosing liabilities and more.

Merely one claim in this lawsuit involves the attempted Murder upon my family by an Iraqi style car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to mine during the early phases of the high stakes corporate theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property Rights.

Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to this as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower Case

In summary, dating back to 1998-1999 at the time the inventions were discovered,

I had Signed Non Disclosure Agreements, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing

Arrangements, including Agreements that were at the time in legal review for R3D

relating to the USE of my Proprietary Rights in inventions which were hailed as the "Holy

Grail" of the internet.

The technologies were deemed the “Holy Grail” by multiple experts under signed NDA’s as it permitted full screen full frame rate video previously thought impossible and zoom and pan imaging technologies which removed pixel distortion.

The stolen technologies are now commonly found on virtually all digital imaging and video hardware and software.

These Signed Agreements were amongst hundreds of signed agreements with many Fortune 1000 Companies.

After signing Agreements with Real 3D, Inc. ( R3D ), a company whose ownership was composed of Lockheed Martin ( 70% ), Intel ( 20% ) and Silicon Graphics Inc. ( 10% ), Intel later took over complete ownership of R3D of Orlando Florida.

In the subsequent months thereafter, a series of critical events occurred including

but not limited to the discovery of fraudulent patent applications and the discovery of

fraudulent corporations, the corporate frauds were discovered by Arthur Andersen during

an audit for the largest investor in the companies Crossbow Ventures of W. Palm Beach

Florida.

Nearly two-thirds of the Crossbow funds were secured through SBIC Loans from

the Small Business Administration making the SBA the largest investor in the

technologies and companies.

On information and belief, the SBA Inspector General’s office is conducting an ongoing investigation into these and other matters please refer to the SBA Inspector General’s office to obtain relevant information.

As you will see by the letter and petition to the 44

the US President, Barack Hussein Obama II, found @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/

20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

and also sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder, I was then directed by Harry I. Moatz,

Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office of Enrollment and

Discipline to file charges with the Commissioner of Patents claiming Fraud Upon the

USPTO, my companies and myself.

This led to the Suspension of certain Intellectual Properties while investigations remain ongoing; please refer to Moatz and the Commissioner of Patents office to obtain relevant information.

In addition, Moatz directed me to seek Congressional Legislation to obtain an Act of Congress to correct the falsified Oaths on my Intellectual Properties submitted by my former legal counsel at the law firms of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein &; Schlissel, Foley &; Lardner and Proskauer Rose.

An Act of Congress is necessary to make the changes in inventors, owners and assignees

that are fraudulent, for which we have sought aid from The Honorable Senator Dianne

Feinstein who remains working through her offices regarding such.

These backbone technologies which were stolen in 1998-1999 have since been

used throughout the United States and across the globe throughout the entire value chain

of content creation and distribution of video and images for both software and hardware

in the transmission of Digital Video and Imaging across ALL Spectrums, including, the

Internet, Television, DVD, HD DVD, Micro Processing Chips, as well as, a mass of

applications for Defense, Flight & Space Simulation, including on the Hubble Space

Telescope (providing a deeper view into time) and on virtually all Medical Imaging

Devices, and more.

In fact, members of R3D and Intel were some of the earliest champions of the value of the technologies claiming they were “Priceless” and were valued in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over the life of the Intellectual Properties, having transformed the world of Digital Imaging and Video that now are considered part of daily life.

Intel was one of the earliest players in this scheme and has continued to not only

defraud myself and the other rightful owners of the technologies, including Ellen

DeGeneres and Alanis Morissette, but has simultaneously defrauded the Intel's

shareholders and investors for years by failing to report and disclose the liabilities with

full knowledge of their Binding Obligations regarding the technologies.

These frauds and failures by the Intel management team have continued despite multiple communications over several years that have gone directly to the President of Intel, Mr. Paul S. Otellini and their Corporate Counsel Mr. Bruce D. Sewell and Steven R. Rodgers and continue despite the knowledge of the signed Agreements.

At this time, however, as noted in my Feb. 2009 letter to the Office of the US

President Barack Hussein Obama II and the US Attorney General Eric Holder, I wish to

bring to your direct attention the identities of several federal offices already involved in

this ongoing national and international Intellectual Properties theft and fraud.

Investigations that will aid and facilitate the SEC with background information for the

proper performance of complete investigations by the SEC allowing for information

sharing with these agencies, some of the key offices are as follows:

1. Glenn A. Fine, Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Justice

2. Harry Moatz, Director, OED of the USPTO

3. H. Marshall Jarrett, Office of Professional Responsibility of the FBI

4. A complete list of Federal, State & International Actions can be found @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm. ..."

Source of Post and Full Document on Intel Corp. Stealing
the iViewit Digital Video and Imaging Patent Pending Technologies.

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


Posted here by

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

FBI Coverups, Boca Police Scandals, Major Law Firms Covering Corruption, Enron Collapsing, Attempted Murder, Invention Stolen, Denial of Due Process.

Proskauer Rose Corruption

In America only Certain People have rights to Protection from the Law - Most All are just Collateral Damage to Protect Corrupt Attorneys, Judges, DOJ Officials, Corrupt FBI agents, Billionaire Tech Companies, Major Media Companies and Mega Law Firms.

Judical Coverups, Attorneys and Judges Protecting Each Other, Illegal Behavior among judges, attorneys and clerks .. well this is American Justice.. not based in TRUTH or Law but Based in who you know and what your willing to pay them to cover your Dirty Deeds...

"" KernelOfTruth says:

There is a case in which any one of you might be interested. It involves the theft of patents worth at least one trillion dollars, and has already paid out billions in royalties that have never been received by the inventor or the company (with no report of where that much looted money has disappeared).

The reason you may be interested is that it is a Florida case with ties to places in New York, and the inventor seems to have run into problems similar to those discussed by individuals who have posted on the subject of public corruption in the Scott Rothstein case.

The shenanigans are unbelievable, including, but certainly not limited to, a Keystone Cop like investigation by the Boca Raton Police Department and an ostensible Office of the FBI [in West Palm Beach]. How much do you think it cost the taxpayers to set up that [rented FBI] Office, which acted as though an investigation was being run when nothing was done to examine the complicity of lawyers, public officials, and investigating agencies and a car bombing.

If you are interested, you can go to http://www.iviewit.tv and listen to certain testimony relating to the crimes that were allowed to occur through the Courts, both a Civil Division State Court and U.S. Bankruptcy Court, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

If you prefer, you can read certain documents at
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2004%2020%20Iviewit%20Request%20for%20FBI%20IA%20and%20OIG%20investigation%20of%20FBI%20case%20downlow.pdf

The inventor and main person being abused, Eliot L. Bernstein, discusses the matter in the State Hearings held in New York, involving public corruption. One case brought up concerns a Monty Friedkin case, which he says is cloaked as lawyers and law firms acting as a criminal enterprise stealing inventions from inventors.

He identifies William J. Dick of the Foley and Lardner law firm and Brian Utley as working with Christopher Clarke Wheeler to steal inventions from Monte Friedkin, of Diamond Turf Equipment, a Florida corporation.

The criminal enterprise against Mr. Friedkin was explained as Utley (operating as the President of the company) contracting former IBM patent attorney William Dick to write Friedkin’s patents in his name and place them into a company incorporated by Christopher C.Wheeler of Proskauer Rose.

According to [page 15 of] the Complaint found at that web site, a lawyer that had subsequently been convicted in Florida of Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury is identified as the instigator or ringleader. Then, this ringleader, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, is identified as a lawyer with the law firm of Proskauer Rose.

This scam is identified by Eliot Bernstein (in testimony and also by Stephen Lamont in the Complaint) as being perpetrated in a same fashion [as that run against Diamond Turf] when involving his Iviewit Company, wherein certain individuals performed in the enterprise, to walk the patents and intellectual properties [Utley] worked on, out of the business and into a company that these co-adventurers owned, in which the true owner [in this case, one can replace Friedkin with Bernstein] had no interest or idea of it’s existence.

Scroll down to pages 16 - 18 of the 43 page Complaint, and you can read about how both intrinsic and extrinsic fraud were further perpetrated before a Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm Beach County, in the State of Florida, with what would appear a Circuit Court Judge’s willingness to grant an allowance for continual acts of perjury, intentional fraud, and criminal acts of conversion.

For instance, the Judge [Jorge Labarga] is said to have stated that the prior counsel that the parties did not know or hire had been representing them so that the right to file almost anything in the case had been waived by the counsel that had no authority to file the case or act in the case.

Further on, at page 21 [after explaining the reasons for starting File number 402-2-59-1799-339, on May 13th, 2002, with the County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, at the behest of the Long Beach, California FBI], is the explanation “Bernstein, upon discovering further that the companies were involved in a federal bankruptcy in Florida (Case No. 01-33407-BKC-SHF Inv Chap 11 in the Southern District of Florida) and the law suit in civil court in Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit discussed above, both previously unbeknownst to exist by shareholders or management of the legitimate companies, built his case from California and then moved to Florida to the lions den or Labarga’s court and the Bankruptcy Court, believing that justice would be had.

Both actions filed in Florida were instigated by Proskauer Rose and Proskauer Rose referred management Utley, Michael Reale and an entity RYJO, Inc. (“RYJO”).

RYJO a subcontractor under a strategic alliance structured by Proskauer Rose, between Iviewit and Real 3D, Inc. (“R3D”) a client of theirs, R3D owned 70% by Lockheed Martin, 20% by Silicon Graphics Inc., and 10% by Intel, later wholly acquired by Intel and a third party necessary with management to file an involuntary.

With new counsel relieving dirty counsel, those acting without authority, now replaced by counsel retained by the legitimate companies, Bernstein went back to Florida to pursue his rights. It is presumed that once Proskauer Rose to instantly get rid of the evidence of the fraudulent companies but first had a plan to get the stolen intellectual properties out.


Thus, when combined, the billing case that they thought nobody would ever discover was in court and bankruptcy, the companies could do the following:

(i) Proskauer Rose would sue fraudulent companies ABC which harbored the stolen patents with a large unpaid bill

(ii) this would make them the largest creditor and thus entitled in a bankruptcy to majority of the company and the stolen patents and

(iii) with Utley, RYJO and Reale instigating the bankruptcy they would be the remaining benefactors, it would all look clean to the Courts, almost invisible and they would walk off with the stolen assets. They never figured that Bernstein would be tipped off to this in the midst of the process”.

It was related that one of the counsel [Kenneth Rubenstein] “was so brazen that the Court was in his pocket, that he wrote [Judge] Jorge Labarga a sworn statement claiming he never heard of Eliot Bernstein, the Iviewit companies and was being harassed”.

Also related to the case was a declaration of a showing to Warner Brothers of entries with investor H. Wayne Huizenga, in regards to the Iviewit inventions and multiple billings.

The kicker in the last paragraph [on page 18] is the obvious dereliction of duty in regards to what passes for FBI Agents in the network [of the ol’ south Good Ole Boys] and compromised Office of the US Attorney with the Southern District of Florida, when it is written “one asks, why later those same crimes exposed in mass against the government to the West Palm Beach Office of the FBI, were not prosecuted when taken by the FBI to the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with all the other crimes they were apprised of and given evidence in support of and which they then led Iviewit to believe they were investigating until April 17, 2007”.

Page 20 holds a critical piece of information, which is “Another part of the immediate problem was that evidence surfaced of a deal between the fraudulent Iviewit companies and Enron’s Broadband Division, in the now infamous Enron/Blockbuster Deal which due to Enron’s booking of hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of earning it, on a new technology for broadband internet distribution of movies, based on technologies almost stolen from Iviewit which are the true cause of the collapse of Enron.

All evidence of this had to be destroyed by the law firms who had perpetrated the crimes and this may have been the cause of the massive shredding party”.

For a story about the “Specific Involvement by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -- West Palm Beach Office: January 2003 to March 2007”, scroll down to page 23.

The tale involves accusations regarding lawyers submitting false statements and falsified documents (including to a Court of Law), money made or laundered under the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements, conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety that involved Public Office corruption cases before the Florida Supreme Court, denial of due process and procedure in the Civil Courts as the criminal lawyers legal and political power have been able to position [without disclosure] through conflict to avoid prosecution by infiltrating Public Offices where Complaints have been filed, the infiltration of the attorney discipline process [both in New York and Florida],

..the possibility that the [Democrat-controlled] Proskauer Rose law firm is controlling certain of the Florida Courts and Disciplinary Departments when the New York law firm has one small Office in Boca Raton, cases at the Boca Raton Police Department that were derailed [with the Officer disappearing without Notice],

...the possibility that the [Republican-controlled] Foley and Lardner Law Firm is controlling a certain tier of the Florida Courts and the Governor’s Office when the Wisconsin law firm had virtually no presence in Florida, a subterfuge of a deferral of a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Complaint that falls under another conflict due to the fact that Governor Charlie Crist had appointed [Iviewit’s former patent counsel] Foley and Lardner, special Office positions favorably given to lawyers like George Lemieux [a managing shareholder where the ringleader (Christopher Wheeler) worked in the Fort Lauderdale Office of the Gunster, Yoakley, & Stewart law firm].

The behavior of the President of The Florida Bar [Kelly Overstreet Johnson] who worked for the brother [James Wheeler] of the ringleader lawyer, the infiltration of federal investigations, an FBI Agent [Stephen Lucchesi] who acted as though the problem was one that was civil in nature without need for FBI involvement, Special Agent Joseph Sconzo’s denial that there was any file concerning Iviewit in the FBI’s [rented] West Palm Beach Office.

Special Agent in Charge John McVie’s denial of any history of Iviewit or Eliot Bernstein with any FBI investigation after years of investigation, a non-existent Securities and Exchange Commission investigation jointly run with the Boca Raton Police Department, denial of any oversight responsibilities pertaining to action taken by the FBI by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice [Glenn Fine],

.... the dismissal of a need for an audit when the Small Business Administration is the largest investor and shareholder through SBIC loans, the lack of oversight by the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, the lack of investigation by the Department of Justice into the Iraqi-style car bombing of the family vehicle belonging to Mr. Bernstein his wife and three children, possible terminations of US Attorneys for political reasons and retirements of Special Agents for political reasons,

... an admittance of no power or authority held by either the House Judiciary Committee or the Senate Judiciary Committee, harm to international relations through violations of international treatises, the failure of former Commissioner of Patents [John Doll] and his successor Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property [Jon W. Dudas] to follow the law, and possible influence wielded by Michael Grebe [the former Chairman of the Foley and Lardner law firm and former Chairman of the Republican National Committee who is currently under investigation for other violations]

The gist of the Complaint can be boiled down to the request contained on page 22, which is “With the revenues from the technologies converted to their pools and already generating profits in billions of dollars since invention, it would take either a continuous corruption of any legal or prosecutorial agency the complaints went or easier that with a Presidential top down denial of due process and procedure, through various Presidential appointments in key positions to block it top down.

We are asking the DOJ OIG to investigate for any possible connection to election fraud or payola to politicians capable of planting individuals to block Iviewit at each of these agencies”.

Moreover, on page 7 of a succeeding formal request to the Office of Internal Affairs for the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the inventor and President & Founder of Iviewit Technologies, Inc./Iviewit [Iviewit Holdings, Inc.], Eliot Bernstein, further concluded his ordeal and exasperation and concern for others, in his summation: “Please contact me immediately regarding these matters, as I fear for not only the life of my family but those who had volunteered to act as witnesses and others, that presumed they were doing so with the FBI investigating the matters.

I am in grave concern that the FBI has taken no actions to protect a citizen whose life has been threatened repeatedly, whose car has been blown up and confirmed as committed with intent by fire investigators.

A group of citizens who have followed all the rules of making complaints to all the proper authorities, to find that no one is protecting their rights to life, as well as, the rights guaranteed through the Constitution under Article I, Sec 8, Clause 8 pertaining to protection of inventors with the full weight of the Constitution, in the event of just such attempts to steal such inventions and murder inventors.

In fact, in a RICO case the FBI typically offers protection to witnesses against corruption from small or large mobsters when witnesses’ lives may be in danger.

Where a group of citizens have brought allegations of corruption that may yield a Patentgate, with attempted murders already occurring in the US and threats already effectuated against ones life, it is stunning that FBI officers who have been fully apprised of the matters and tendered evidence and witnesses against the accused, have not granted an iota of protection to those who are in danger, all indicating a top down control of the government and its regulatory agencies.

Control by those at the top to aid and abet those alleged to have committed such atrocities, through violation of public offices of these federal and state investigatory agencies. Most disturbing though is that it now appears that no one is protecting the United States and foreign nations from a group of criminals cloaked as lawyers, politicians and judicial members!”. ""

Posted Here
By Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

What Really Collapsed Enron? Well it was a Proskauer Rose Law Firm Scandal, a Foiled Patent Theft. Proskauer Rose Law Attorney Corruption has ruined countless lives, portfolios and has left an amazing path of Destruction.

Can Enron Victims Sue Proskauer Rose Law Firm for their Loss, Suffering and Hardship.. well if they had the TRUTH .. maybe? But wait.. Proskauer Rose controls US Courts, Judges, Attorney Ethics Committees .. so Nevermind...

Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC and FBI Complaint with Mary Schapiro, against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Proskauer Rose

SEC Complaint Filed, is the SEC Listening .. It Does not sound like it. The SEC must be covering up for Favors owed, covering and protecting billionair tech companies and Above the Law Law Firms Like Foley and Lardner and Proskauer Rose.

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

"" March 14, 2010 --

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

Corp Management of Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL), Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Silicon Graphics, Inc. (delisted NYSE: SGI) & successor Silicon Graphics International (NASDAQ: SGI), Sony Corporation (NYSE/ADR: SNE) , Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT), Ernst & Young Global Limited have known about the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Liabilities for years & allegedly have concealed the liabilities from Shareholders & in some instances reorganized to the detriment of Shareholders in alleged fraudulent transactions, which may lead to Shareholder Rescissory Rights & catastrophic damage to the companies as complained of to Fed Officials.FEB 12, 2010 CRIMINAL COMPLAINTThe SEC Complaint filed Feb 12, 2010,

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

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

and

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

SEC COMPLAINT INTEL, LOCKHEED MARTIN & SGIA SEC complaint also was filed by Iviewit against Intel, SGI & Lockheed & similar allegations were levied against these corps for Patent Theft, knowing infringement & Shareholder Fraud.

The March 29th 2009 SEC Complaint to Shapiro titled “Complaint Regarding Intel Corp & Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel Shareholders & Others”http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20FINAL%20Intel%20SEC%20Complaint%20SIGNED2073.pdf

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

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

Anderson’s testimony http://www.iviewit.tv/20090608nysjudiciaryhearing/index.htmhttp://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=205

Bernstein testimony before the NY Senate Judiciary of systemic corruption that has blocked due process & procedure via corrupt infiltration of the NY Courts @http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=189http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=165

HOUSE OF CARD COLLAPSING ON NY CRIME SYNDICATE INSIDE NY COURTS, ETHICS DEPARTMENTS, PUBLIC OFFICES & REGULATORY AGENCIES BY CRIMINAL LAW FIRMS & LAWYERSThe House of Cards is Crumbling on Key Players in the Iviewit Scandal as the NY Corruption Scandal Elevates to Senior NY Political Figures including Cuomo & members of the NY Supreme Court & US Fed Courts in NY. Proskauer Rose.

Proskauer, mastermind of the bungled attempt to steal the Iviewit patents through Fraud on the US Patent Office & further bungled attempts to cover up the crimes in the NY Courts is under further scrutiny with Proskauer’s direct involvement in the Stanford Financial Ponzi & subsequent resignation of partner Thomas Sjoblom, a former SEC enforcement officer, allegedly found coaching Stanford employees on how to lie to SEC & FBI investigators at a Miami Airport Hanger preceding the arrest of Stanford & his employees.

Proskauer also sued in a Class Action suit for the entire 7 billion dollar Stanford losses & sued by an arrested Stanford employee. Proskauer has further direct ties to both the Madoff & Dreier Ponzis.NY Attorney General CuomoFollowing the illegal representation by the NY AG in the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST suit & Anderson’s Whistleblower suit under Spitzer as NY AG, the Cuomo Admin continues to represent illegally State Defendants in both cases left over by Spitzer (a named Defendant in the RICO and Antitrust).

As the Iviewit & Anderson claims are further investigated & litigated these present the largest liability to Cuomo’s run for any office as the largest scandal brewing in NY begins to unravel with his offices dead center.

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

Iviewit filings of Illegal rep by Cuomo @http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Oposition%20to%20AG%20Cuomo%20letter%20email%20copy.pdfhttp://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090129%20Final%20Extension%20of%20Time%202%20SIGNED%20low.pdf

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

Also of concern is if these massive liabilities have been reported to State Auditors by Cuomo?The US 2nd CircuitIn the US Second Circuit, Iviewit filed a “Motion to Compel” compelling that court to follow law, as with Anderson’s revelations exposing court members, that court has tried to ILLEGALLY Dismiss all the legally “related” cases to Anderson in attempts to bury them & keep the lids on the scandal that may lead them to exchange their legal robes for prison garb. Motion to Compel

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=78http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf ""

"Addressed to:
SEC Chair Mary Shapiro
SEC IG, H. David Kotz
IG OF THE US DOJ, Glenn Fine
FBI
HOUSE & SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
NY SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
US AG, Eric Holder

Treasury IG, David Gouvaia
SBA IG, Peggy Gustafson & Daniel O’Rourke

US DEP OF COMMERCE IG, Todd Zinser
Under Sec of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Dir of the USPTO, David Kappos
Deputy Under Sec of Commerce for Intellectual Property & Deputy Dir of the USPTO, Sharon Barner

USPTO - OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT & DISCIPLINE DIR, Harry I. Moatz
US PRESIDENT, Hon President of the US, Barack H. Obama II
FILED AGAINST
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Barry Meyer

Pres & COO: Alan Horn
EVP & CFO: Edward Romano
VP & Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne Smith
AOL, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Tim Armstrong
GC & EVP: Ira Parker
Counsel - Patent Lit, Prosecution & Licensing: Christopher Day
Exec Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley

Time Warner, Inc.
Chair & CEO: Jeffrey Bewkes
EVP & GC: Paul Cappuccio
MARCH 29, 2009 SEC COMPLAINT INTEL, LOCKHEED MARTIN & SGI "

Press Release for Immediate Release

A Veteran Judge, Never a Prosecutor, Is Seen as Well Suited to Investigate the Governor - Judith S. Kaye - David A. Paterson - New York Courts

"" The new chief investigator who stepped into the spotlight in place of Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo on Thursday was a judge for a quarter century, not only in title but also in temperament.

Cuomo Hands Paterson Case to an Ex-Judge
(March 12, 2010)

Times Topic: Judith S. Kaye

That, say people who know the state’s retired chief judge, Judith S. Kaye, may be a strong enough résumé point to make up for a lack of prosecutorial experience as she takes over the politically volatile investigation of Gov. David A. Paterson and his administration. In a long legal career, she never worked as a prosecutor.

But her appointment could add to the investigation’s credibility, said George Bundy Smith, who served with Judge Kaye as a judge on the state’s Court of Appeals until he retired in 2006. “She will be objective, and that is the main thing you look for in an investigation like this,” Judge Smith said.

In a statement on Thursday, Judge Kaye thanked Mr. Cuomo for entrusting her “with these serious and important matters.”

“I promise,” Judge Kaye added, “that the public will have a full, fair and independent accounting of the facts.”

Former prosecutors said that though Judge Kaye lacked a track record of making prosecution decisions herself, her career on the state’s highest court and, before that, as a litigator in civil cases, provided her with many of the skills needed to navigate not only the management but also the political sensitivities of the investigation.

“Regardless of what decision she reaches, her decision will be respected because of who she is and what she brings to the table,” said Alan Vinegrad, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn.

Judge Kaye, 71, was first appointed to the court in 1983 by the current attorney general’s father, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo.

She became chief judge in 1993 and was widely praised when she retired as the longest-serving chief judge in 2008.

Mr. Paterson said at the time that she would “go down in history as one of the greatest chief judges this state has ever had.”

Benito Romano, a former United States attorney in Manhattan, said that Judge Kaye’s reputation as a careful judge might be exactly what was needed to calm political anxieties. “It should provide people who are concerned about the decision being driven by politics with great reassurance,” Mr. Romano said.

On the court, Judge Kaye was considered liberal on some issues, including gay marriage and the death penalty. But she often sided with the prosecution in criminal cases and sometimes said that her rulings defied simplistic labels.

With a domestic-violence case as one of the aspects of the inquiry, some lawyers noted her history of interest in that issue. In her role as the chief officer of the sprawling state court system, she made it plain that she had a special commitment to working on the problems of domestic-violence victims.

She created special domestic-violence courts to provide victims with social and other services, saying that the complex cases required an integrated approach that went beyond the letter of the law.

Before she was named to the bench, Judge Kaye was a prominent civil litigator and the first female partner at Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O’Donnell & Weyher, which was one of the city’s blue-chip law firms.

Since she retired from the court, she has been at the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

While there, she headed an investigation into the State University at Binghamton’s athletic scandals that was critical of officials for compromising standards when the school moved into major college athletics. ""

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/nyregion/12judge.html

Are You Kidding me, Judith Kaye Investigating anyone for anything is Riddled with Conflicts of Interest, Cronism, Favoritism, Political Ties, Political Favors and will certainly not be unbiased in any way what so ever in my opinion.

As I have been following the Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent case and It seems to me that when Judith Kaye was Judge, the Criminal did as they pleased and that she allegedly covered up for Trillions of Dollars in Crimes that Proskauer Rose Law Firm was accused of, as in the Alleged Trillion Dollar Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent.

Remember .. yes Judith Kaye is now a Widow, However, her then Husband was Stephen Kaye a Proskauer Rose Partner - and her whipping boy was Steven Krane.. big wig in New York Ethics and well THEY run New York along with the Connections at Proskauer Rose - which are connected to the Really Big Money and Political Ties and WELL - Judith S. Kaye will Certainly NOT Add ANY credibility to an investigation on ANYONE..

Who is George Bundy Smith... I mean Really.. he thinks Judith S. Kaye adds "Credibility" ARE YOU KIDDING... ???????????

I just see No Way that Judith Kaye adds ANY Credibility to this Investigation.. in My Opinion Judith Kaye .. Ex-Judges adds the Element of ... ok Whew not someone has my Back and I won't get into trouble.. Judge Judy will Hide my Ass and ALL will be Well...

didn't Judith S. Kaye Create that Athletic Scandal... or was some part of creating some smoke screen or diversion so the bad guy could get away.. hmmm.. I cannot keep up with the Alleged Corruption out of New York.. and where there is Alleged Corruption I cannot help but notice a Proskauer Rose Cronie Connection..

"greatest chief judge" "calm political anxieties"???? What a Crock !!!

other links for more information on Judith Kaye, Proskauer Rose and Iviewit Technologies..

http://nylaw.typepad.com/new_york_civil_law/2007/03/chief_judge_jud.html

www.Iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

www.ProskauerSucks.com

posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...

Warner Bros. Signed Agreements with Iviewit and Violated them, Creating Major Shareholder Liability.

Below is information on an Alleged Trillion Dollar Fraud Against the Shareholders of Warner Bros. Entertainment, AOL Inc. and Time Warner.

There is a whole lot of back up and proof in this Allegation. Shareholder of Warner Bros. Entertainment, AOL Inc. and Time Warner - You NEED to Take a Look at This.

"" Official Formal Complaint sent by Official SEC Email and Official Email Addresses to Other Investigatory Agencies and Committees addressed herein, Against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. and Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged fraud on Shareholders ""

"Complaint filed against, including but not limited to;

Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.

Chairman and CEO: Barry M. Meyer

President and COO: Alan F. Horn

EVP and CFO: Edward A. Romano

Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne M. Smith

AOL, Inc.

Chairman and CEO: Tim Armstrong

General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development: Ira Parker

Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing: Christopher Day

Executive Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley

Time Warner, Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer: Jeffrey L. Bewkes

Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Time Warner Inc.: Paul T. Cappuccio

Potential Catastrophic Effects to the Shareholders of Warner Bros. The Fraud Seemingly Proven in this SEC Complaint Could Trigger Rescissory Shareholder Rights.

"" To further establish the urgency and Time Sensitive nature of this FORMAL COMPLAINT, please note that the criminal fraud and other crimes described herein will likely trigger Rescissory Rights of Shareholders at all of the respective and related companies of Warner Bros et al., which likely will have Catastrophic impact on both the companies and its Shareholders.

Therefore, the SEC must instantly investigate these matters and instantly bring the matters to the attention of the Warner Bros et al.

Shareholders, Auditors, Financial Institutions and all other parties with potential liabilities resulting from the allegations herein and whereby if the companies and their Executives fail to notify Shareholders and Regulators, the SEC must act quickly to notify them.

The SEC must begin immediate investigation of the Securities Frauds described herein and prevent ongoing and future fraudulent corporate transactions from further harming Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.

Further, I point out to the SEC herein what looks like a recent pattern of Shareholder Fraud and Deceit done with Scienter, beginning on or about March 2009, by Officers, Directors, Counsel and Auditors for Warner Bros et al., which are alleged to have been done in order to commit further fraud upon the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders.

That these recent corporate restructurings may be the result of Key Executives of Warner Bros et al. attempting to abscond with corporate assets through a series of recent complex corporate breakups.

The breakups began immediately after I contacted Warner Bros. in March 2009 with my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq. (“Hall”), regarding massive unreported liabilities to their Shareholders[4].

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

This Formal Complaint for Investigation of Warner Bros et al. on this day, Friday, February 12, 2010 comes after Hall and I made repeated Good Faith attempts since March 2009 to address the Business and Corporate Responsibility issues with Executives, Officers, Board Members and Auditors at the respective companies.

Warner Bros et al. was contacted in order to find possible solutions to avoid catastrophic events from occurring to their Shareholders, if possible, prior to further actions with investigators, including the SEC.

The following timeline of events will establish the correlations between the allegations of fraud described herein, in relation to the timing of the corporate restructurings of Warner Bros et al.

Correlations in time with both the 2001 merger and now in the 2009 breakup with the frauds described herein, will provide the SEC a basis, mired in factual evidence, to begin immediate investigation of this complaint for massive securities fraud, in order to protect Shareholders from further possible related losses in these highly traded blue chip stocks. ""

The Above Quote is Some of the Iviewit SEC Complaint Filed Recently by Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies Against Warner Bros.

Click HERE for More Details on Warner Bros. Involvement
and your Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner Inc. Shareholder Liability.

This Blatant Ignoring of a Liability This Large is
Something that Warner Bros., AOL, and Time Warner Inc.
Need to Know and Right Now...

Click Here for Full SEC Complaint to Find Out Your Liability
in a Trillion Dollar Stolen Technology that is Now Used in
Every House in America if Not the World.

Another Blog of Interest On Warner Bros. Role in
the Stolen Iviewit Patent

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

posted on this Site by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower

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

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

Iviewit Stolen Patent Case - Need to Know More about Iviewit Technologies and Who has the authority to do What?

Internal Iviewit Document ... Proskauer Rose LLP, Christopher Wheeler - Proskauer Rose Attorney, Billing, Incorporation, Investment and Shareholder information and well, a Mega Need to Know Document... to help you to understand WHO has the authority to do what in regard to and on behalf of the Iviewit Company ... who billed what to whom and ... well, Lot's of Information.

Click Here for Document

it is Rather Large - Give it a Few ... to Load..

Posted by

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Iviewit Stolen Patent Case - On What or Whose Authority is P. Stephen Lamont Acting On?

Why is Stephen Lamont Threatening to End the Affairs of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox? Why is Stephen Lamont Demanding that I Copy him on my emails to anyone regarding the Iviewit Company?

Why in the World would Stephen Lamont Threat my Life, and my "Affairs", just because I posted a document and words THAT were NOT mine... ???

Does Stephen Lamont have the Legal Authority
to Speak on behalf of the Iviewit Company?

Can P. Stephen Lamont Legally File Federal Documents to QUASH Eliot Bernstein's Motion .. when Mr. Lamont was Fired, Long .. Long ago ?

Iviewit, Eliot Bernstein Says:

" Lamont was not approved by any board, as the board disbanded illegally and without noticing the shareholders and so I hired lamont and offered him stock in the company. Later we learned from Garber and other law firms that we could not act on behalf of Iviewit in official capacity until the books and corporate records were fixed, approximately 50k and that is why lamont claims he was advised by counsel to work outside the company and not as an officer, as he legally was never an officer."

More on Iviewit.. and Lamont
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/02/p-stephen-lamont-friend-or-foe-of.html

Posted by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower

This is not My Story .. it is However, the Greatest Patent Story every Told, and well I find it intriguing So I post about it.. I Found the Information on www.Iviewit.TV where the story has been running for 8 Years.

I link to that site in Which Stephen Lamont also promotes.

SO why threaten me for posting information from that site and directly from the REAL owner .. and one of the Inventors of the Iviewit Patent.. Why Terrorize me for simply reading a Website and posting pieces of it on my site and linking to the site...??

Why has, P. Stephen Lamont, an Alleged Former CEO of Iviewit Technologies Inc. Threatened me for posting information that is not mine.

And it is Reported to ME that Stephen Lamont has Joined and or Created a Hate Group, and is actively recruiting others to join him in this group that is threatening to Incarcerate me, Burn Me at the Stake, Ruin Me, and Telling Lie upon Lie about me.. and my Business.. all because I Posted Excerpts from the Iviewit Website.

I just don't Understand. I have no Bad intentions.
I am simply writing about an 8 Year Old Stolen Patent Story
that is and has been already on the Web for 8 years....

Not my Story...
I am Just a Modern Day
Investigate Journalist.. which means
I Read..
I Post...
that Simple..

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.iViewit.TV

Crystal Cox Blog

CEO Lamont Interfaces With President of Microsoft TV

"..August 05, 2009 "


"CEO Lamont Interfaces With President of Microsoft TV
Category: Web, HTML, Tech

Enrique, "

"It has been a long, long time and I hope all is well with you and yours. We have watched the Google/On2 technologies deal with interest, and, as a counter, I would like to introduce you and Microsoft to Iviewit Technologies, Inc. where we believe we hold the patent pending rights to the: (i) backbone, enabling technology for the encoding and transmission of video across all networks and viewable on all display devices; and (ii) image overlay systems, the effective inventors of digital zoom. At your leisure, please look at our website (sans all the legal jargon and car images inserted by our passionate founder) and let me know what you think.

As a last word, the patent filings are in need of some repair and continuance, but you can see where we fit in video by the attached slide. Look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net ; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont ; www.iviewit.tv "

Source of the Above Quote
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=114167543&blogId=504031809

******
Question, Does P. Stephen Lamont have the "Authority" to email Microsoft on behalf of Iviewit Technologies ? Who is the "We" P. Stephen Lamont is Referring to? Up until an Email P. Stephen Lamont send me yesterday I thought he was was working on behalf of Iviewit, and for the best interest of the shareholders, but Emails Correspondence I have been Privileged to over the last couple of days Suggest Different.

More information on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at Eliot Bernstein's website www.Iviewit.TV or my Blog on the Fascinating Story of the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at www.DeniedPatent.com

Crystal L. Cox
Whistleblower

This one is as of Sept. 09 P. Stephen Lamont acting as if he is still CEO of the Iviewit Company. Who Really has the RIGHT to act on Behalf of Iviewit

"CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention

CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention Category: Web, HTML, Tech
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.

........

P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038

By Overnight Mail (o), Facsimile (f) and Certified Delivery (c)

September 23, 2009

The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (o) The Hon. Preet Bharara (c)
Attorney General of the United States United States Attorney for
Office of the Attorney General District of New York
United States Department of Justice United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One St. Andrews Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 New York, New York 10007

Hon. William M. Welch II (c) The Hon. John L. Sampson (f)
Chief, Public Integrity Unit Chairman, New York State Senate
United States Department of Justice Judiciary Committee
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W 409 Legislative Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Albany, NY 12247


RE: Request for Federal Intervention into Allegations of Corruption and Appointment of Federal Monitor.

Gentlemen:

By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and related parties (“Iviewit”), and pursuant to my fiduciary duties, I respectfully request your offices to: (i) attend the New York State Senate’s Standing Committee on the Judiciary’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing concerning The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“1st DDC”), the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts (collectively, the “DDC’s”), and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“CJC”), where you will hear testimony related to the commission of Federal crimes by and between and the 1st DDC, the DCC’s, the CJC and aggrieved citizens of the State of New York; (ii) once you have digested such testimony, and by the body(ies) of appropriate jurisdiction, the eventual issuance of a temporary injunction and a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of New York from further administration of the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC and the insertion of a Federal monitor to administer such agencies in lieu of State administration; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate such allegations of the commission of Federal crimes and the eventual prosecution of same.

As a case in point, the following describes the experiences of Iviewit with the aforementioned New York State agencies:

I. Iviewit Technology

The series of events proximate to the instant circumstances herein surrounds the sabotage of the multimedia inventions of Iviewit and the further alleged cover-up of that patent sabotage by the many attorneys, public officers, and members of the judiciary within and outside of the State of New York.

To begin, I would like to make it clear that Iviewit is not referring to some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems (“IP”) are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the encoding and transmission of video and images across all networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints presently in use by cable MSO’s, satellite MSO’s, telco MSO’s, and terrestrial networks, among a host of others. On the imaging side, presently in use by all those hardware manufacturers of image and/or video capture devices and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Mars Rover images), Iviewit stakes the claim as the inventors of digital zoom.

II. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE COMPLAINTS FILED

1st DDC

In or about February 2003, and in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to attorney misconduct complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel LLP (“MLG”) filed with the 1st DDC, that were mired in undisclosed conflicts, improprieties, and violations of public offices of the 1st DDC from the outset. The attorney discipline response of Rubenstein was authored by Steven C. Krane of Proskauer who, upon information and belief, held positions at the 1st DDC and other disciplinary agencies at the time of the response making his representation a conflict of interest and violation of public offices.

In or about June 2003, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Steven C. Krane (“Krane”) for the above referenced conflicts and improprieties in the response for Rubenstein that imparted same on the now merged Joao complaint.

In or about June 2004, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the 1st DDC, filed with the 1st DDC, Special Inquiry #2004.1122, as a result of Cahill’s knowing and willful false information supplied to Iviewit in an effort to protect Krane, that had since been stalled under the direction of persons unknown, and sat incommunicado in the offices of Special Counsel, Martin R. Gold, for investigation.

In or about June 2004, I was an individual movant in a Motion to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”), inter alia, to begin immediate investigation of complaints against the above referenced attorneys and counselors-at-law. Subsequently, the First Department Court granted the Motion and in an unpublished order it was determined to move the complaints of Rubenstein, Proskauer, Krane, MLG, and Joao to the Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“2nd DDC”) as a result of conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. After thorough review of the subject matter, the First Department Court ordered the immediate investigation of the complaints against each attorney involved – Rubenstein M2820, Joao M3212, and Krane M3198, while the First Department Court ordered the Cahill complaint for a Special Inquiry #2004.1122 by Gold.

2nd DDC

On or about October 2004, the 2nd DDC summarily dismissed the complaints against Rubenstein, Proskauer, MLG, Joao and Krane, failing to conduct the First Department Court’s ordered investigation. In a discussion with Diana Maxwell Kearse, Chief Counsel of the 2nd DDC, Kearse stated that she and the 2nd DDC are not subject to the jurisdiction of the First Department Court and therefore could do as they please, or words to that effect; Kearse factually defies the Orders of the First Department Court so as to preclude the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, and Krane.

DAMAGES SUFFERED

Were it not for Iviewit’s discovery of the conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in Krane’s response for Rubenstein and Proskauer, the attorneys would have received discipline by reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, where such discipline would have been positively reflected in a variety of complaints across domestic and international agencies, but particularly the Iviewit intellectual property investigation being conducted by Harry I. Moatz, the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Were it not for the stalling of the Rubenstein and Joao complaints at the 1st DDC, and the unpublished nature of the First Department Court’s order, the transfer to an equally conflicted 2nd DDC, and the dismissal of the Rubenstein, Proskauer, Joao, Meltzer and Krane complaints by the 2nd DDC in reckless disregard for the Order of the First Department Court, Iviewit shareholders would not have suffered the damages of:

Emotional distress; and
Loss of consortium with their families; and
On a personal note, lost savings in the amount of approximately One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000); and
Lost value of the equity interest in the capital stock in Iviewit Holdings, Inc. in an amount that can approach One Trillion Dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).

Consequently, considering the above set of circumstances, the state of affairs in New York will never right itself absent Federal intervention, and Iviewit again respectfully requests: (i) the attendance, by individuals at your discretion, at the New York State’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing; (ii) and once familiar with the state of affairs, the appointment of a Federal monitor to administer the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the commission of these Federal crimes.

Thank you for your attention to these matters, and Iviewit looks forward to your earliest replies.

Very truly yours,

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.

....By:
Chief Executive Officer

Reply to Address:

35 Locust Avenue
Rye, N.Y. 10580



Cc: The Hon. David A. Paterson (c)
New York State Governor
Office of the Governor of New York State
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III (c)
Deputy United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Public Corruption Unit
United States Department of Justice
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo (c)
New York State Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341

The Hon. Loretta Preska (c)
Chief U. S. District Judge
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312

The Hon. Luis A. Gonzales (c)
Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
27 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10010

The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr. (c)
Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004

Source of Above QUOTE
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=114167543&blogId=511391360
Lamont - Iviewit
More on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - Eliot Bernstein's Website or
www.DeniedPatent.com the Blog of Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox

P. Stephen Lamont - Friend or Foe of the Iviewit Shareholders?

Is P. Stephen Lamont working for or Against the Iviewit Shareholders and the best interest of the Iviewit Inventors?

******

Below is an excerpt from an SEC letter to be filed shortly regarding information regarding the fraudulent actions of P. Stephen Lamont in his continued representation of Iviewit, as CEO no less, at an address where no Iviewit company has ever been incorporated or listed with any agency.

P. Stephen Lamont was fired long ago and has no right to act in any capacity for Iviewit or Iviewit Shareholders.

P. Stephen Lamont also has been reported to the courts for his criminal activities in representing shareholders in my Federal RICO and Antitrust case when he is not a licensed attorney and never has passed the bar.

You will find other information below regarding the illegal activities of P. Stephen Lamont and he has been reported to State and Federal agencies regarding these crimes.

I advise anyone considering dealing with P. Stephen Lamont in any capacity to check with your legal counsel about the possible ramifications you may incur regarding any issues with Iviewit and Lamont. These latest assaults on my character etc. appear to be feeble attempts by a desperate man whose cover and misdeeds have been exposed.

P. Stephen Lamont also references filings with the US Second Circuit whereby his separate appeal has been dismissed but fails to mention that in my appeal he also was identified for illegally representing Iviewit Shareholders when he is not an attorney.

• FEBRUARY 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - SIGNED WARNER BROS. LICENSE AND SERVICE AGREEMENT @

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

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

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

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

Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees. Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office[1].

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

o Whereby former Acting CEO of Iviewit P. Stephen Lamont, ( a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis ) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement. Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the agreement is attempted to be wholly denied.

The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, perhaps because they were denying its existence.

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

• April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. "Bill" Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL.

AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.

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

• May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Chey formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony ( also under Signed Agreements ) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor.

Since that time, Warner Bros. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit.

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

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

The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION
of Sony’s involvement in these matters.

Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros. et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors. I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony.

The SEC can take this Formal Complaint additionally
as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY.

• December 20, 2001 ~ P. Stephen Lamont's letter to Kenneth Rubenstein regarding Smith and Rubenstein and the refusal of Rubenstein to RE-OPINE to Smith due to what he claims is a “CONFLICT”, which led further to the breakdown of relations between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. Lamont later affirmed to Shareholders in a written communication that Microsoft had planted him in the Iviewit companies.

Later P. Stephen Lamont changed that story to AOL and Leonsis’ niece had planted him in Iviewit through AOL Founder Leonsis’ best friend Chuck Brunelas (“Brunelas”). Brunelas recruited under contract Lamont to the Iviewit companies on behalf of Leonsis. Lamont’s revelations of being planted at the company which came after he was hired led to the termination of Lamont at that time[2].

December 20, 2001 P. Stephen Lamont Letters to Kenneth Rubenstein ~

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

Pages 455-462

o November 09, 2001 ~ Brunelas Employment Agreement

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

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

The SEC should note here that Hall and I recently reported Lamont to Federal and State authorities for alleged collusion in the RICO activities claimed in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, including ongoing criminal activities[3].

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

• P. Stephen Lamont claims to be CEO of Iviewit Technologies, Inc. in multiple correspondences and Federal court papers with an address at 175 King Street. Armonk, N.Y. 10504 and whereby no Iviewit offices were ever opened or authorized at this address. The office is directly across the street from Defendant in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit IBM’s world headquarters.

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

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

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

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

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

• 2001 Resume Claims the following:

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

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

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

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

“By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former Acting CEO of Iviewit (counsel advised all Iviewit executives to resign their posts and work along side Iviewit rather than within Iviewit, as the former Board of Directors, Counsel and Accountants, disbanded without requisite notice to Shareholders in violation of law, thereby leaving massive liability and exposure) and a significant shareholder in Iviewit.

With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering” Source www.iviewit.tv homepage.

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

• Further, you will note that Lamont refers to himself as “former Acting CEO of Iviewit” and claims counsel advised him to resign any official role due to the potential for charges of fraud, and I advised Lamont to follow counsels’ advice and personally, I did not accept any official roles on counsels’ advice.

Yet, even in recent court documents and other illegally signed documents executed by Lamont to major Blue Chip companies, including Microsoft, Lamont now represents himself as CEO of Iviewit inapposite of counsels’ advice, at an address that is not registered to any company Lamont claims to be employed as CEO by.

• August 05, 2009 Lamont Letter to Microsoft http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20090805%20Lamont%20Illegal%20Letter%20to%20Microsoft.pdf

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

• February 09, 2009 Lamont Court Filing

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

• The SEC should note here that while the document claims service on February 09, 2008, it appears executed February 09, 2009.

Whereby the SEC should also note that Lamont does not represent himself individually in the Lawsuit but acts on behalf of Iviewit Shareholders of which he has no authorization from Shareholders to act on their behalf and also is not a lawyer, making it ILLEGAL for him to act on others behalf in a legal capacity.

The District Court and Second Circuit Court notified of this ILLEGAL representation and asked by me to force amendment of the complaint, instead continue to allow the ILLEGAL representation of Lamont to continue. This ILLEGAL representation of Shareholders is also a serious criminal act.

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

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

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

• January 07, 2002 ~ Letters by Lamont regarding his meeting with Rubenstein regarding Warner Bros et al. Rubenstein was presented the exhibited document in draft form at his deposition, where he read it and then dodged questions regarding why his name is referenced in relation to opinions he gave to Warner Bros. et al. after denying he knew anything about Iviewit or the patents.

The letter wholly contradicts his prior denial of knowing of the Iviewit inventions or Eliot Bernstein, contradicting his sworn deposition statements and sworn letters to Judge Jorge Labarga constituting multiple instances of perjury and more.

January 07, 2002 and more P. Lamont letters to Kenneth Rubenstein

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

Pages 19-23

o November 20, 2002 Kenneth Rubenstein Deposition and Deposition Exhibits

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

Pages 1-100, the exhibits attached to the deposition show Kenneth Rubenstein’s denials.

• January 14, 2002 Warner Bros. employee Colter’s internal Warner Bros. document containing an ADMISSION OF USE OF IVIEWIT PROPRIETARY PROCESSES AND VIOLATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS by many Warner Bros. et al. employees. The letter also provides affirmation that Rubenstein ( MPEGLA LLC Patent Counsel, former Iviewit Proskauer Rose Patent Counsel and Warner Bros. counsel ) opined favorably to Warner Bros. The document again directly refutes Rubenstein’s statements in deposition and written communications to the Labarga court that he did not opine or even know of the Iviewit inventions.

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

• February 17, 2002 – Eliot Bernstein letter to Brunelas Regarding Smith’s sudden request to have Rubenstein of Proskauer speak to him to re-opine on his former statements, already exhibited herein, regarding the efficacy and novelty of the patents.

Kenneth Rubenstein was acting Patent Counsel to Iviewit as indicated in the exhibited Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer billed to author and distribute to Iviewit potential investors when he opined to Warner Bros.

The links below provide information on Kenneth Rubenstein’s position as an Iviewit Board member and Iviewit Patent Counsel despite his statements to the contrary.

At the time Smith requested to speak with Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein already were terminated by Iviewit and investigations were already underway regarding the patent thefts and more.

o February 17, 2002 Letter from Eliot Bernstein to Brunelas.

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

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

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

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

Page 16 - “Strong and Experienced Board of Directors and Advisory Board.” iviewit's Board of Directors and Advisors consist of several well-established individuals from the technology, entertainment, and financial community.

Directors have extensive backgrounds with top-tier firms such as Goldman Sachs, Kidder Peabody, and McKinsey & Co. Crossbow Ventures has provided $3.0 million in funding and sits on the Board.

Technology and entertainment guidance comes from a partner at Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway & Wertheimer and from Kenneth Rubenstein, the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool.

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

Page 38 – ADVISORY BOARD SECTION

“Kenneth Rubenstein Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP. Mr. Rubenstein is a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and is the patent attorney for iviewit. He is a registered patent attorney before the US. Patent & Trademark Office.

Mr. Rubenstein counsels his clients with respect to the validity and infringement of competitors' patents, as well as prosecutes patent applications. For the past several years he has worked on the formation of a patent pool, for MPEG-2 technology, involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies.

He is also a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. Mr. Rubenstein received his law degree, cum laude, from New York Law School and his Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he also graduated with a B.S. Degree.

The SEC should note here that Rubenstein’s attempt to claim he never heard of Iviewit, including at his deposition, allegedly is due to the massive conflicts of interest that Rubenstein had.

If Kenneth Rubenstein were patent counsel to Iviewit and simultaneously counsel to Warner Bros. et al. when he originally opined to Colter, without conflict waivers or disclosure, this obviously would have violated attorney conduct codes and law.

Additionally, Kenneth Rubenstein is conflicted with the patent pooling scheme and artifice to fraud inventors he has created, MPEGLA LLC, where again he acted as counsel and founder of MPEGLA LLC while also patent counsel to Iviewit.

The conflict here is again obvious where the Iviewit technologies were the single greatest threat to his pools as Iviewit has the dominant technology, which without, the MPEG license would be worthless.

The SEC should note that Rubenstein initially misrepresented himself and Joao as Proskauer Partners to Iviewit, when prior to learning of my inventions they were both with Meltzer.

Kenneth Rubenstein is counsel and sole patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC now one of the largest infringers of the Iviewit technologies, licensing Warner Bros et al.

Proskauer, after learning of my technologies value, estimated at a trillion dollars to “priceless” by leading engineers at Real 3D, Inc. and without a patent department at the time in 1998, then rushed to acquire Rubenstein and his Meltzer patent group and the MPEGLA LLC pools.

When the acquisition was complete, Proskauer, my former patent counsel, directly began inuring benefits from the stolen technologies via their new client MPEGLA LLC in their new Intellectual Property department created after learning of my inventions.

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

The SEC should note here that Warner Bros. et al. and many of those involved directly in these matters are also involved in DVD patent pooling schemes, including but not limited to, DVD6C Patent Pool[4].

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

o The SEC should note that the only Meltzer Intellectual Property attorney not to transfer to Proskauer at the time of acquisition was a one Raymond Joao, who initially with Rubenstein was represented as a Proskauer partner and who took initial patent disclosures with Rubenstein.

In 1999-2000 it was learned that Raymond Joao was putting patents into his own name while sabotaging the Iviewit patents. Upon leaving Iviewit, Joao claimed publically that he had 90+ patents in his name and then went to work for Marc S. Dreier, recently prosecuted and convicted by the SEC for an alleged Ponzi scheme, as further evidenced later herein.

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

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

• February 20, 2002 – Calkins Letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.

The SEC should note that opposite of Warner Bros. claim in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record, it is instead Warner Bros. that attempts to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter.

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

• February 27, 2002 – Lamont to Calkins about Warner Bros. Breach of Contracts, the SEC should note that while Lamont relies on the NDA, the February 15, 2001 SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, illustrated above, also has strong language about IP rights concerning the Iviewit technologies that also are violated.

Also, take note, that at this time in 2002, Warner Bros. et al. knew of the breaches and formally was notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches and therefore they should have begun accounting for the IP Liabilities at this time, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.

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

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

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

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

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

pages 3-9

Please note that the correspondence exhibited above refers to a notification issued to Warner Bros. at that time, which provided Warner Bros. et al. further notice at that time that Cease and Desist letters and threatened litigation would be forthcoming regarding the technology infringements.

Warner Bros. et al. already was given notice of Breach of Contracts regarding the Intellectual Properties in prior communiqués exhibited and these letters certainly cite specific liabilities Warner was aware of going forward.

Liabilities exist for Warner Bros et al. for their involvement in the alleged criminal RICO activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros. et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of pouring in $25 Million Dollars in investment capital to my companies.

When doing their due diligence on a $12 Million Dollar Private Placement with Wachovia Securities, corporate and intellectual property frauds were uncovered, including discoveries by Smith regarding the filed patents and Calkins regarding corporate fraud.

At that time, Warner Bros et al. employees and personnel became aware of fraud relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional to what Andersen had found on or about that time and this information was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins.

Colter relayed that Warner Bros. et al. uncovered fraud, including fraudulent statements made by Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner, former Iviewit counsel, regarding statements made in the Wachovia Private Placement.

A Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer circulated to potential Iviewit investors including Warner Bros. et al. These Securities Frauds contained in the Private Placement are also cause for further SEC investigation.

Per Colter, Warner Bros. et al. and Smith uncovered Intellectual Property Frauds involving fraudulent oaths to the US Patent Office and Worldwide Patent Authorities, which has in part led to suspension of my Intellectual Properties by the US Patent Commissioner pending investigations by the US Patent Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This series of events led to further uncovering Patent Fraud by my former counsel Proskauer Rose, Foley and Larder and Meltzer and others that are subject to several state, federal and international ongoing investigations and legal actions.

Investigations now include one by Harry I. Moatz (“Moatz”), Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office – Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”), charged with oversight of the Federal Patent Bar and patent attorney criminal issues.

Moatz confirmed that W. Palm Beach FBI Special Agent, Stephen Lucchesi had joined his investigation of FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE.

Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office which resulted in the exhibited herein patent suspensions.

Moatz assembled a team of Patent Office Officials to aid me in getting the Intellectual Properties ready for suspension while investigations proceeded, as he removed all prior counsel from access to the IP.

Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by their counsel Proskauer Rose.

Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer Rose LLP or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement.

It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer Rose were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer Rose LLP and had Stolen Intellectual Properties in them, this was learned from information discovered directly from the US Patent Office OED Investigations.

Whereby, Arthur Andersen on or about this time, while auditing the Iviewit companies for the largest investor Crossbow Ventures of West Palm Beach Florida, whose investment funds were two-thirds SBA SBIC funds found identical and similarly named companies to the Iviewit companies.

The Fraud involving the stolen Small Business Administration Funds is under ongoing investigation with the SBA Inspector General’s office and others.

Per Colter, Smith discovered Fraud involving Kenneth Rubenstein, a Proskauer Rose law firm partner and sole patent evaluator for one of the largest infringers and criminal suspects in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit.

Kenneth Rubenstein is under investigation with other attorneys by Moatz and was also ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of five justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety for violating public offices to block complaints I filed against him.

Where later, after discovery of the Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, it was learned that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros. was working with Kenneth Rubenstein ( Iviewit Patent Counsel, MPEGLA Counsel and Warner Bros. Counsel ) and that their relationship somehow now precluded Kenneth Rubenstein from re-opining on his prior opinion of the patents for Warner Bros. employees as already evidenced herein.

Whereby Warner Bros. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of those binding signed agreements.

The MPEGLA LLC patent pooling scheme created and overseen by Counsel Rubenstein is merely an artifice to defraud inventors and has illegally precluded me from market in classic antitrust activities, including death threats and a car bomb.

Whereby the DVD Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in have also used the technologies in violation of signed contracts and agreements, admittedly, yet since that time they too have excluded Iviewit from market, again in classic antitrust activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 year Massive Liabilities.

The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between these prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al., communications and contracts and the current contact to notify them again of liabilities resulting from the IP infringement and the newer Lawsuit liabilities, that during the gap I was actively pursuing my rights.

I have given similar information to several investigators and courts over the several years in between communications regarding Warner Bros. et al. involvement in the Iviewit allegations in my Federal RICO Lawsuit.

During the time, I was also forced to flee my home several times for my family’s safety, including from death threats from Mr. Brian Utley on behalf of the law firms Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner and then from actual Attempted Murder of my family. Attempted Murder through a Car Bombing of my family minivan in Del Ray Beach, FL., images of the Car Bombing can be found on the www.iviewit.tv [5] homepage.

Eliot Bernstein... Information to be found at http://www.iviewit.tv/

More Details on the Iviewit Case at www.Iviewit.TV