Stephen Lamont has SOLD Shares of Iviewit Technologies? How in the World Did Stephen Lamont Do that?

Stephen Lamont has sent out emails on Iviewit.. Stephen Lamont said this..

"It has come to my attention that there is a question about how Kevin McKeown became an Iviewit Shareholder. The answer is simple: I sold him one (1) share of my holdings on May 11, 2010 for cash and a note, as is my right. "

How Can this Be? When no Iviewit Shares are actually Legally Owned by anyone and Stephen Lamont knows that he has no legal right to act on behalf of Iviewit, and Stephen Lamont knows that actual shares have not been issued right??? as there was no board.. or something like that.. I mean he admits on the www.Iviewit.TV homepage that he was advised that he was NOT to act on behalf of Iview.. did Stephen Lamont have "holdings" to SELL .. is this Legal.. ??

It is My Understanding that.. Stephan Lamont, when hired as "ACTING" CEO, which is his self proclaimed original title, it is my understanding that Stephen Lamont wrote an employment agreement for himself, issuing stock for himself, which Eliot Bernstein agreed too as the company board has disbanded without any succession for shareholders or any formal notice, or reporting of mass fraud they had become aware of and that Eliot Bernstein was stuck holding the ball, per say as the rest of the team nowhere to be found.

So at this point Eliot Bernstein hired P. Stephen Lamont, whose resume questions Eliot Bernstein submitted to authorities as inconsistent but on good faith.

It came to pass, that Mitch Welsch in trying to help out the Iviewit shareholders and Eliot Bernstein, brought his friend Andrew Barroway, Esq. in supposed efforts to save Iviewit.

As you will remember, those around at time, Barroway signed a Letter of Understanding on his lawfirms letterhead to invest millions in Iviewit and represent Iviewit against in all litigations at the time, the document is on the homepage @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2007%2016%20Signed%20Letter%20of%20Understaning%20Iviewit%20&%20SB.pdf .

Ok, so then Barroway at the last minute.. the VERY last minute decides they wanted to talk settlement with Proskauer Rose @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2007%2028%20Proskauer%20Draft%20Settlement.pdf , including letting Proskauer Rose off if the patents were screwed up???

The settlement document had to be reviewed by lawyers by the parties before signing and Eliot Bernstein demanded at the last minute, counsel for Iviewit, Stephen Lamont and Eliot (personally and professionally) as they wanted me to sign as CEO, Lamont would have to resign as ACTING CEO and personally, so four lawyers were required for Eliot Bernstein and Stephen Lamont but Stephen Lamont opted out of getting counsel.

Marc Garber, Mitch Welsch's friend was brought on as personal counsel and he stated, along with Eliot's corp counsel that the docs could not be signed as presented, as neither Stephen Lamont nor Eliot Bernstein were legally in charge and had not been elected by a succession Board and the corps were already learned to be a mishmash of frauds so that the corps would all have to be updated with states, a new board somehow put in and a continuation plan or new company set up for a small fee of 30k, at which point Eliot Bernstein was broke and did not have the money to do this..

Also, it was claimed that to sign a release of liabilities of Proskauer Rose for patent problems would leave Iviewit further liable to shareholders which if Iviewit lost everything from the foolish settlement we could be liable to shareholders.

Since no one could legally sign the document without first reorganizing the companies, the settlement fell off.

Next, in a brazen move, after signing the LOU, Barroway was ready to go to trial along with our prior attorney in Proskauer Rose instigated billing lawsuit (on bogus companies with stolen patents) and the trial was like the next day or so and on the day of the trial, Selz called and said that the trial was cancelled without notice by Judge Labarga , Jorge Labarga at the rehearing scheduling, was presented with a withdrawal of counsel by Selz who claimed he was dropping as Barroway was signed in LOU to carry forward and Barroway had suggested his boot. Labarga granted.

Then Barroway, in a surprise move, almost as if he was working for the other side, presented Labarga with a withdrawal of counsel letter stating Selz would handle and Labarga granted and further left Iviewit with no counsel and 45 days to retain new counsel.

Barroway failed on all contract terms, never paid anything more than 1,000 salary even though they were supposed to have paid instantly a lot of money.

Iviewit failed to get counsel in 45 days and Labarga, despite having evidence that Proskauer Rose partners had perjured themselves in depo and more, ruled a default judgment in their favor.

Now, when Stephen Lamont was advised by counsel that he nor Eliot Bernstein could act in ANY official capacity for the company until the corps were all sorted and filed properly and new management elected etc., Eliot Bernstein went with the title Founder and Inventor and Stephen Lamont went with FORMER ACTING CEO.

In P. Stephen Lamont's own words from the iviewit homepage,

"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.)"

So Lamont was advised by counsel that all the documents, including his employment agreement etc. that were signed by Eliot Bernstein in an official capacity that Eliot did not really have and all his stock incentives etc. were not really due to this and would have to redone when the companies were repaired legally in the end, Lamont did not care and Eliot Bernstein promised that if he were to turn out in the end to be a good guy v. a plant (remember he claims first that Microsoft planted him and then later changes to AOL planted him through Ted Leonsis' niece or something to that effect) Eliot would honor his deal with him on the New Company or when the old were litigated and fixed and sorted through to determine the fraudulent companies etc. If he were dirty, of course he would lose everything.

So is Stephen Lamont working on the Right Side of the Law and the Right Side of the Moral Compass on this one.. ???

So Lamont resigned his ACTING CEO post, became FORMER and now, again with no board or management approval, having been fired by Eliot Bernstein.. Iviewit Founder and One of the Iviewit Inventors... and told to go away, Lamont changes his title now to CEO of yet another Iviewit that does not exist in New York and at an address not registered to any Iviewit company, perhaps these are the shares he sold to McKeown...

And what about the Spreadsheet Lamont attached to all this..

it is my understanding that it is his concoction and again Bernstein and Lamont were advised by counsel that any changes to what originally transpired with original shareholders was possibly fraudulent and certainly not valid until the corps could be brought up to compliance, etc. So all Lamont's self written stock agreements he knows are not legal at this point, yet he just ignores the advice he gets from counsel. .. WHY?

As a fired consultant to Eliot Bernstein and having no official title at Iviewit, Lamont instead makes it all up with a company in NY with a similar or identical name to Eliot's companies where he is now Iviewit CEO???...

What?

Stephen Lamont Says..

"" Interestingly enough, I received a call this morning from a third party aggrieved plaintiff asking to buy in! Without getting into net worth requirement details, I declined because as I have said before, according to Cap Table Version 10 - Final (attached), the capital of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. is CLOSED. ""

hmmmm, this is an interesting statement, Lamont is considering investors in his stock and where he has not been issued ANY shares in ANY iviewit companies because there were no shares to issue or way to issue them to him and so are they the shares of his fraudulent Iviewit in NY he has on his emails that he is CEO of, not even acting or former now.

Did Stephen Lamont get into the net worth requirements of McKeown whom it seems strange would be buying in when he knows of all these issues as Eliot Bernstein sent him the information when he brought Eliot Bernstein into the Anderson and related cases, under his covert name Frank Brady.

Sounding surreal, bear with me here and where it has been said that Brady, a former DDC employee, friend of Scheindlin's clerk, friend of Anderson, etc. is some form of Federal Agent and has so imparted that info to those he corralled to the Anderson party.

So, it would seem a little bit strange that Frank/Kevin would be buying shares of what he knows are fraudulent companies and where he knows Lamont is incapable.

Why is Lamont and Brady going to Supreme Court? What is their objective there anywy?

Why are they trying to change the case title without seeking leave to amend, why is this so important?

Now as for Mitch Welsch, it was last heard from attorney Marc Garber is that Barroway issued a basic threat upon Welsch that whatever happened to the House of Barroway would come back on the House of Welsch a thousand fold or words to that effect, a basic death threat to Mitch and his family. This is my understanding anyway..

It is said that Isa Welsch, Mitch's wife was longtime friends of Barroway and so this seemed serious, many fear their life over the Iviewit Stolen Patent to this day as the Wall of Corruption ... well it is quite intimidating to most..

As for Brett and Barry, its seems they appeared misinformed by Stephen Lamont as to what they were joining as Plaintiffs in a case at the Supreme Court with Lamont, that Eliot Bernstein will use as more Prima Facie evidence of his continued fraudulent acts for criminal investigators and I do not believe they will joining Mr. Lamont on his way fraudulently to the Supreme Court as CEO of an unknown iviewit and acting on shareholders behalf.

It is interesting to note that if Lamont who in the Original Fed Complaint, he wholly wrote, no editing from Bernstein other than to make him a Plaintiff as an Individual and as Lamont had it, on behalf of Iviewit shareholders. Eliot Bernstein questioned Lamont why he filed not as an Individual and he claimed he feared liabilities, I wonder if he disclosed this to everyone he is asking to sign on personally to his fraudulent suit documents and scheme???

Eliot Bernstein later found out that Lamont was wrong and that they could not sue on behalf of others, as we were not lawyers, Lamont having graduated Columbia Law claimed prior that this was OK but unless you are an attorney this claim is false.

Especially since they did not seek approval of those Lamont stated we were representing, the shareholders and when Eliot Bernstein learned of his statements to be false, he petitioned the Judge Scheindlin and US 2nd Cir to remove him as a Plaintiff on Behalf of and that he was mislead to think that it was OK by a law graduate.

Eliot Bernstein notified the court that upon learning of this false representation he notified Lamont and he would not seek leave to amend to change it, as he has no basis in the lawsuit without it.

Isn't it strange how Lamont now is trying to garner shareholders to look like he is representing them all along but none of these people ever approved the original complaint allowing him to represent them, now that his patents are well below his ankles and I have reported this to criminal authorities and the NY Bar, for his impostering a lawyer.

Stephen Lamont Says

"Lastly, contrary to one individuals opinion (do I even need to mention his name?), the above referenced filing is merely a Petition not a new lawsuit, where the relief prayed for is a review of lower court's findings where all Iviewit shareholders were parties; this Petition puts no one individual at monetary risk, much like the District Court suit and the 2nd Circuit appeal. "

All Iviewit shareholders were not really parties to the Original Complaint and most never even knew Lamont was representing on their behalf as he never sought their approval, again when Eliot Bernstein told him they should do that he claimed it was not necessary, that we had the right to act on their behalf, again a false statement.

Lamont also makes legal conclusions here about risk and liabilities to the parties that join as Plaintiffs on his newly stylized complaint with their names in Broadway Lights on the Heading of his "petition".

Is Stephen Lamont a lawyer, no, he never passed the bar???

Does Lamont have the power to tell people they have no risk or liabilities and why was he afraid to put his name individually on the original filing? Also, has Lamont sought leave to amend the Original Complaint to enable his changing the Case Title??? WHY???

Stephen Lamont has NO Authority What So Ever to Act on Behalf of Iviewit in ANY way.. and Stephen Lamont knows this .. so why is he throwing up yet another bogus smoke screen...

If you are an Iviewit Investor.. Seek Independent Legal Advise... Find out the Facts and your Risk and Liability BEFORE you sign anything...