Matthew Triggs - Proskauer Rose - Ethics Violations - Supreme Court Conflict of Interest

Conflict of Interest Galor

Matthew Triggs is a Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department of Proskauer Rose According to Their Website.

Matthew Triggs resident in the Florida office. Matthew Triggs Esq. has actively and aggressively litigated a wide variety of matters ranging from complex commercial disputes to securities class actions, broker-dealer arbitrations, real property title disputes and employment discrimination claims, having represented clients such as Club Med, Office Depot, Chase Manhattan and Infinity Radio, Inc. according the Proskauer Rose Website.

Matthew Triggs Esq. litigates extensively in both state and federal court and frequently counsels clients with respect to alternative forms of dispute resolution.

Matthew Triggs Esq., lives in West Palm Beach with his wife, Amy, and their three children. He serves on the Board of the Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, and is a Fellow of the Florida Bar Foundation, a statewide not-for-profit organization which promotes the charitable interests of Florida's legal profession.

Source:
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/matthew-triggs/

Much More About Matthew Triggs Esq. of Proskauer Rose Coming Soon.

Iviewit Complaints against Matthew Triggs Esq.,

Non-Compete & Trade Secrets

Overview
In our highly competitive, knowledge-driven global marketplace, a company’s ability to protect its confidential information and other intellectual property, human capital and client relationships is critical. Proskauer’s Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Group represents and counsels clients on all aspects of non-competition and trade secret law.

Our clients look to us to litigate when their key employees resign and join competitors and look to us for advice (and, when necessary, to defend litigation) when hiring a competitor’s employees. Our practice includes: day-to-day counseling on the hiring and firing of employees possessing confidential information and customer relationships, and the drafting of confidentiality, non-compete, garden leave provisions and other agreements, along with policy manuals on information ownership and protection. We also counsel clients on a range of compensation plan matters, such as designing “golden handcuffs” to retain key executives or protect intellectual property, confidential information and customer and workforce relationships. Our client base ranges from public to private companies, private equity firms, hedge funds and asset managers, as well as individual executives, founders and business owners.

The law in this area varies widely in the U.S. and overseas and, in most jurisdictions, the resolution of a non-compete case will turn on all the facts and circumstances. This makes predicting and planning difficult and puts a premium on the actual high-stakes litigation experience we possess, which covers claims of employee-raiding and theft of trade secrets, including litigation under the U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Our lawyers have handled literally hundreds of trade secret and non-compete matters and bring significant experience from multiple legal disciplines, including corporate, executive compensation, labor and employment, intellectual property and, of course, litigation. The five co-heads of the group alone have more than 100 years of collective experience in their practice area.

In fact, our group was recognized in the top tiers of the trade secrets section of US Legal 500 for our reputation in the marketplace and for handling more cases in this important area than any other firm, with Boca Raton-based practice co-head Allan Weitzman and his team receiving individual recognition and practice co-head Steven Kayman recognized for being “incredibly knowledgeable about all manner of trade secrets issues” for his handling of numerous litigations and counseling representations.

Areas of Focus
Employee Movement
Non-Compete Agreements
Non-Compete/Trade Secret Litigation
Non-Solicitation Agreements
Trade Secrets
Unfair Competition
“Golden Handcuff” Compensation/Equity/Retention Arrangements
Key Representations
Invatec in a multi-district litigation commenced by Johnson & Johnson Corporation and a subsidiary, alleging that Invatec improperly raided its sales force and aided and abetted breaches of non-competition agreements and duties of loyalty. We successfully negotiated a global resolution that allowed all but one of the J&J sales associates at issue to immediately commence employment with Invatec.
Satyam Computer Services in a hotly contested case arising from a joint venture with Venture Global Engineering, an outsourcing company for engineering services for the automotive industry. The London Court of International Arbitration awarded Satyam all of the relief it sought, including its right to purchase VGE's 50 percent interest in the joint venture at book value, reimbursement of substantial royalties paid to VGE and a release from a non-compete agreement.
Corporate Express in an important ruling by the Supreme Court of Florida confirming that a successor employer can enforce a non-compete agreement signed with a former employer even when the agreement does not contain a successors and assigns clause and where the employees have not consented to its assignment
ChicagoTitle/Ticor Title Insurance Company in obtaining a federal court injunction, later affirmed by the Second Circuit, to enforce a non-compete against a top sales person leaving to join a competitor. The case made important law on irreparable injury, pre-departure solicitation and other aspects of non-compete law.

http://www.proskauer.com/practices/non-compete-and-trade-secrets/


Fiduciary Litigation

Overview
Litigation between trust beneficiaries, trustees, executors and personal representatives is on the rise. Banks and trust companies are at particularly high risk for exposure to claims. With current investment scandals and volatile markets further raising tensions between these parties, there is no indication that this trend will subside anytime soon.



Our Fiduciary Litigation Group draws on our century-old trust and estates practice and the extensive trial experience of our litigators to help institutional and individual fiduciaries design their practices to avoid litigation. We take the unusual step of conducting periodic surveys of banks and trust companies to determine current best industry practices and pass on the results of those surveys to our clients through educational seminars. This process ensures that our clients can institute best practices aimed at preventing unnecessary litigation.



When conflict cannot be avoided, we put our vast experience in alternative dispute resolution to work. We have a greater than 90 percent success rate in resolving matters quickly and efficiently through negotiation, arbitration and mediation. However, in the rare instances when matters are not resolved, our lawyers are skilled at handling trials. In addition, our experience representing trustees means that we can understand both sides of the issues, yielding positive results when representing beneficiaries who challenge estate planning documents or fiduciary actions.



We have a broad geographical reach with fiduciary litigation capabilities in major markets throughout the U.S., including New York, Florida and California. Few firms are able to combine our depth of knowledge regarding fiduciary issues with such a national platform.



Areas of Focus

Counseling
Trust Intake
Administration Procedures
Tax Planning
Controversial Trustee Actions
Educational Seminars
Litigation
Claims Against Fiduciaries
Will and Trust Contests
Guardianship Disputes
Charitable and Exempt Organization Controversies


Key Representations

Trustee of a trust created by celebrity entertainer Britney Spears under a separate conservatorship proceeding under intense media circumstances


An individual in a will contest based on a Valentine's Day card written to our client. Though the court would not admit the card as a holographic will, it would allow it to prove the terms of decedent's lost will, and based on that conclusion, the court awarded the bulk of decedent's assets to our client.


Large multi-national bank, which was named executor under a decedent's will, in a challenge of that will by her children. The matter. which we were ultimately able to settle after three years of litigation, involved legal proceedings in both federal and state courts and the production of over 100,000 pages of documents.

Memberships
Palm Beach County Bar Association

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit
(Former Member of Grievance Committee)

Related Links
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/01/mathew-triggs-christopher-wheeler.html

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

www.Iviewit.TV

www.MatthewTriggs.com

Matthew Triggs - Proskauer Rose

Proskauer Rose Crime Chart - Connections and Affiliations

Proskauer Rose NOT GUILTY !!! ????????

How in the world Can any of those in the Department of Justice, the SEC, the FBI, the Supreme Court, the Bar Complaint People and all those in the Position to Do the Right thing.. how can they overlook ALL of this Proof...

Click here for a Mega Document on the Connecting the Dots on Proskauer Rose...

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

Proskauer

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

Patent & Copyright Misappropriations

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

•Contributory Antitrust Violations

•Co-Directs RICO Violations

•Tortuous Interference with Business Relationships

•Conflicts of Interest

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

Link to Source Of this Post
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/KAFIN.htm
Proskauer Rose LLP, Robert J. Kafin

a Fox in the Hen House to Say the Least - Patent Office Director David Kappos Connected to IBM - say What ??

"Patent Office Director David Kappos on innovation

Each month we interview a different leader in innovation.

This month: Q&A with David Kappos, the newly appointed Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), whom we met when he visited our hometown of San Francisco in mid October, and then interviewed recently for this newsletter.

Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM—so let’s just say he’s seen more than a few patents over the years—before President Obama tapped him for government service as the nation’s top patent person. Here’s perspective from the Director:

Q: What’s been your biggest surprise since moving from the private sector to the USPTO?

David: I have to say that I have a new appreciation for the challenges that come with running a complex agency within the U.S. government.

Q: What's been the most fun part of your relatively new job?

David: The last several weeks have been a blur of intense activity as we have rolled out a number of new initiatives and policies at the USPTO. So it was a special pleasure for me to participate in activities on our campus and at the White House honoring the 2008 National Medal of Technology and Innovation and the National Medal of Science Laureates.

I was particularly pleased to host a reception and dinner sponsored by the National Inventors Hall of Fame and the National Technology and Science Medals Foundation in our museum and auditorium. The men and women who gathered here for the two days of ceremonies truly are the creative and innovative giants of our time.

It was, frankly, great fun and exciting to meet and talk with pioneers like Forrest Bird, the inventor of the portable respirator, the team at Adobe that developed desktop publishing and Dr. Esther Takeuchi who invented the battery technology used in implantable cardiac defibrillators. They and their fellow honorees have saved millions of lives, improved the quality of life for countless others and transformed the way we do business.

Q: Do you ever review individual patents these days?

David: No, we have a team of more than 6,000 examiners in whom I have the utmost confidence.

Q: What's the first thing you'd suggest a person do after he or she comes up with an exciting product idea?

David: Develop a sound business plan in which intellectual property protection is a part. Any business decision has to be an informed one, though, so I would suggest first taking a look at our web site designed with the independent inventor in mind (http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/independent/index.jsp).

Here you will find basic information on applying for a patent or a trademark registration, transcripts of our online chats with independent inventors, and other useful information.

Q: Any other brief advice or words of wisdom for the independent inventors out there?

David: Independent inventors should seek an interview with their patent examiner early in the process as a means to get patents issued quickly and cost-effectively. The statistics show that an interview can help the examiner and the applicant get to the heart of the patentability determination quickly and efficiently.

Interview data from FY 2008 shows that the allowance rate after a first office action on the merits (FAOM) is more than doubled when an interview is held between the examiner and the practitioner. Similar gains are apparent from the First Action Interview Pilot program, which typically includes an interview prior to the FAOM.

It’s no surprise to me that this is the case. When people talk to one another and listen to one another they can quickly understand points of agreement as well as differences, and resolve those differences in real-time. The applicant should come to the interview prepared, willing to answer questions, willing to listen and be receptive to claims modifications the examiner suggests. Sometimes no claims will be allowable; but even if that is the case, an interview that produces an “agreement to disagree” is valuable both to the USPTO and to applicants.

Q: In your perfect world, how long would the patent examination process take, on average?

David: Our goal is 20 months to patent issuance. This would be a major drop from where we currently are—over 33 months on average. Twenty months is optimal because it does not take away trade secrecy lead time (18 months, since that is when most applications publish), and leaves enough time for prior art to become available and searchable, while waiting no longer than needed to serve these two interests. Of course, for applicants who want their patents even faster, we are working on a new accelerated examination process, available for payment of a fee, which will aim to get patents processed in under a year.

Q: Why must patent application and maintenance fees so high in a time when the nation is trying to encourage more innovation?

David: Fees for the patent application, issue and maintenance fees and other related fees are reduced by 50% when the applicant is a small business or individual inventor. Unlike most other federal entities, the USPTO receives no taxpayer dollars; it subsists solely and completely on user fees. Our user fee structure is generally based upon a “fee for service” economic model. In order to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a patent or a trademark from the agency, an applicant must pay certain fees at various stages of the process.

Q: Has President Obama shared any invention ideas with you? And if so, is he filing for patents on any of them?

David: Well, even if I knew I surely wouldn’t betray an inventor’s trust. But if President Obama did get a patent, he would be only the second U.S. president to do so. While a Congressman from Illinois in 1849, Abraham Lincoln received Patent No. 6,469 for “A Device for Buoying Vessels over Shoals.”

Q: What’s your favorite invention from history, and why?

David: Well, thinking about the ones I use most these days—I’d say the computer, the cell phone or the airplane!
David Kappos
Source of Above
http://www.absolutelynewsletter.com/patent-office-director-david-kappos-on-innovation.html
Kappos
Tiny Bit of Hogwash Here... Come on David Kappos is Pretending to Be a Good Guy and Seems to Be Proclaiming to Really Want to Protect Inventors, if So where Is he on Protecting a Trillion Dollar Technology - and the Inventors that are Seemingly Collateral Damage?

Independent Inventors Should Seek Patent Council, Says David Kappos Patent Office Director - Well WHY?

When the USPTO seems to have NO Issue with the Patent Attorney Stealing the Invention and Putting Patents of their Clients in the Patent Attorneys Name... David Kappos Says for you to seek patent council ... I Say Beware... In the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Patent Theft there is Millions upon Millions of Shareholder / Investors Money at Stake, there is Trillions in Benefits ... there is thousands of documents of proof and 8 years of proof on top of proof and the US Justice System Can Do NOTHING to Restore Justice ...

So you the Little Inventor without the Millions .. without the Big Name and Big Connections backing you.. Well you don't stand a Chance, if your Invention is any good the Patent Attorney will Make sure, one way or another that you Don't Actually get to REALLY benefit from it...

Who Better to Protect the Interests of IBM at the US Patent Office then Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).

David Kappos is an engineer-turned lawyer who headed patenting at tech giant IBM - Does this Raise an Eyebrow to anyone, how will David Kappos Really be able to be in the best interest of the Inventors, those trying to patent something really great when he has Connections, and Affiliations that may be in direct Conflict with the Invention?

You are fighting for the rights to your Holy Grail High Tech invention and the Keepers to the Kingdom in which would not exist if it were not for you.. well they are IBM Cronies in the USPTO and the Supreme Court, they are Politically Connected Judges and Attorneys, they are "Evil Doers" and there is NOTHING you can do to get the Rights to Your Invention... So Give up.. and if you Do Get the Nerve Up to Make a Stand.. well You will Pay the Price...

the Connections - the Cronies - the Affiliations -
the Conflict of Interests.... OMG to say the Least...

Kappos

CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM

Dear Alain Pompidou c/o Aidan Kendrick, Wim van der Eijk and any other representative of the European Patent Office who may come into possession of this document, please take notice of and execute the CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM prior to acting on the message following directly below.

This conflict of interest form is designed to ensure that the review of the enclosed discourse with the European Patent Office will not be biased by any conflicting financial interest or any other interest by those reviewers responsible for the handling of this complaint with the main alleged perpetrators of the crimes cited in these matters.

Disclosure forms with "Yes" answers to either or both of the following questions are requested not to open the remainder of the document and instead forward the matters on to the next available reviewer that is free of conflict that can sign and complete the disclosure and proceed with the unbiased review of the matters.

I. Do you, your spouse, your dependents or any business partners, in the aggregate have, any direct, or in any outside entity, indirect relation to the following parties to the proceeding of the matters you are reviewing:

1. Proskauer Rose, LLP
Alan S. Jaffe - Chairman Of The Board - ("Jaffe"); Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); Robert Kafin - Managing Partner - ("Kafin"); Christopher C. Wheeler - ("Wheeler"); Steven C. Krane - ("Krane"); Stephen R. Kaye - ("S. Kaye") and in his estate with New York Supreme Court Chief Judge Judith Kaye ("J. Kaye"); Matthew Triggs - ("Triggs"); Christopher Pruzaski - ("Pruzaski"); Mara Lerner Robbins - ("Robbins"); Donald Thompson - ("Thompson"); Gayle Coleman; David George; George A. Pincus; Gregg Reed; Leon Gold - ("Gold"); Albert Gortz - ("Gortz"); Marcy Hahn-Saperstein; Kevin J. Healy - ("Healy"); Stuart Kapp; Ronald F. Storette; Chris Wolf; Jill Zammas; FULL LIST OF 601 liable Proskauer Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Proskauer partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Proskauer ROSE LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Proskauer related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Proskauer").

2. MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN, WOLF & SCHLISSEL, P.C.

Lewis Melzter - ("Meltzer"); Raymond Joao - ("Joao"); Frank Martinez - ("Martinez"); Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); FULL LIST OF 34 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MLGWS").

3. FOLEY & LARDNER
Ralf Boer ("Boer"); Michael Grebe ("Grebe"); Christopher Kise ("Kise"); William J. Dick - ("Dick"); Steven C. Becker - ("Becker"); Douglas Boehm - ("Boehm"); Barry Grossman - ("Grossman"); Jim Clark - ("Clark"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Foley & Lardner partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Foley & Lardner; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Foley & Lardner related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Foley").

4. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP
Richard Schiffrin - ("Schiffrin"); Andrew Barroway - ("Barroway"); Krishna Narine - ("Narine"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("SB").

5. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP
Norman Zafman - ("Zafman"); Thomas Coester - ("Coester"); Farzad Ahmini - ("Ahmini"); George Hoover - ("Hoover"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally.
Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("BSTZ").

6. Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP
Martyn W. Molyneaux - ("Molyneaux"); Michael Dockterman - ("Dockterman"); FULL LIST OF 198 Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP; Partners, Associates, Of
Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("WHAD").

7. Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.
Alan M. Weisberg - ("Weisberg"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("CW").

8. YAMAKAWA INTERNATIONAL PATENT OFFICE
Masaki Yamakawa - ("Yamakawa"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Yamakawa International Patent Office partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Yamakawa International Patent Office; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Yamakawa International Patent Office related or
affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Yamakawa").

9. GOLDSTEIN LEWIN & CO.
Donald J. Goldstein - ("Goldstein"); Gerald R. Lewin - ("Lewin"); Erika Lewin - ("E. Lewin"); Mark R. Gold; Paul Feuerberg; Salvatore Bochicchio; Marc H. List; David A. Katzman; Robert H. Garick; Robert C. Zeigen; Marc H. List; Lawrence A. Rosenblum; David A. Katzman; Brad N. Mciver; Robert Cini; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Goldstein & Lewin Co. partners, affiliates,
companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Goldstein & Lewin Co.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Goldstein & Lewin Co. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Goldstein").

10. INTEL, Real 3d, Inc. (SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN & INTEL) & RYJO
Gerald Stanley - ("Stanley"); Ryan Huisman - ("Huisman"); RYJO - ("RYJO"); Tim Connolly - ("Connolly"); Steve Cochran; David Bolton; Rosalie Bibona - ("Bibona"); Connie Martin; Richard Gentner; Steven A. Behrens; Matt Johannsen; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO; Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Intel/R3D").

11. Tiedemann Investment Group
Bruce T. Prolow ("Prolow"); Carl Tiedemann ("C. Tiedemann"); Andrew Philip Chesler; Craig L. Smith; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Tiedemann Investment Group partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Tiedemann Investment Group and any other Tiedemann Investment Group related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Tiedemann").

12. Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners
Stephen J. Warner - ("Warner"); Ren P. Eichenberger - ("Eichenberger"); H. Hickman Hank Powell - ("Powell"); Maurice Buchsbaum - ("Buchsbaum"); Eric Chen - ("Chen"); Avi Hersh; Matthew Shaw - ("Shaw"); Bruce W. Shewmaker - ("Shewmaker"); Ravi M. Ugale - ("Ugale"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners and any other Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Crossbow").

13. BROAD & CASSEL
James J. Wheeler - ("J. Wheeler"); Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Johnson"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Broad & Cassell partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Broad & Cassell and any other Broad & Cassell related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("BC").

14. FORMER IVIEWIT MANAGEMENT & BOARD
Brian G. Utley/Proskauer Referred Management - ("Utley"); Raymond Hersh - ("Hersh")/; Michael Reale - ("Reale")/Proskauer Referred Management; Rubenstein/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit - Advisory Board; Wheeler/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit - Advisory Board; Dick/Foley & Lardner - Advisory Board, Boehm/Foley & Lardner - Advisory Board; Becker/Foley & Lardner; Advisory Board; Joao/Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel - Advisory Board; Kane/Goldman Sachs - Board Director; Lewin/Goldstein Lewin - Board Director; Ross Miller, Esq. ("Miller"), Prolow/Tiedemann Prolow II - Board Director; Powell/Crossbow Ventures/Proskauer Referred Investor - Board Director; Maurice Buchsbaum - Board Director; Stephen Warner - Board Director; Simon L. Bernstein - Board Director ("S. Bernstein"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Former Iviewit Management & Board partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Former Iviewit Management & Board and any other Former Iviewit Management & Board related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Iviewit Executive").

15. FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA:
Judge Jorge LABARGA - ("Labarga"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("15C").

16. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
Thomas Cahill - ("Cahill"); Joseph Wigley - ("Wigley"); Steven Krane, any other John Doe ("John Doe") of THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("First Dept DDC").

17. THE FLORIDA BAR
Lorraine Christine Hoffman - ("Hoffman"); Eric Turner - ("Turner"); Kenneth Marvin - ("Marvin"); Anthony Boggs - ("Boggs"); Joy A. Bartmon - ("Bartmon"); Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Johnson"); Jerald Beer - ("Beer"); Matthew Triggs; Christopher or James Wheeler; any other John Doe ("John Doe") The Florida Bar staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("TFB")

18. MPEGLA, LLC.
Columbia University; Fujitsu Limited; General Instrument Corp; Lucent Technologies Inc.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips); Scientific Atlanta, Inc.; Sony Corp. (Sony); EXTENDED LIST OF MPEGLA LICENSEES AND LICENSORS; any other John Doe MPEGLA, LLC. Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") MPEGLA, LLC partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to MPEGLA, LLC and any other MPEGLA, LLC related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MPEGLA").

19. DVD6C LICENSING GROUP
Toshiba Corporation; Hitachi, Ltd.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Time Warner Inc.; Victor Company Of Japan, Ltd.; EXTENDED DVD6C DEFENDANTS; any other John Doe DVD6C LICENSING GROUP Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") DVD6C LICENSING GROUP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to DVD6C LICENSING GROUP and any other DVD6C LICENSING GROUP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as
("DVD6C").

20. Harrison Goodard Foote incorporating Brewer & Son.

Martyn Molyneaux, Esq. ("Molyneaux"); Any other John Doe ("John Doe") Harrison Goodard Foote (incorporating Brewer & Son) partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Harrison Goodard Foote incorporating Brewer & Son and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("HGF").

21. Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;

22. James E. Peltzer, Clerk of the Court of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department;

23. Diana Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;

24. Houston & Shahady, P.A., any other John Doe ("John Doe") Houston & Shahady, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Houston & Shahady, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("HS").

25. Furr & Cohen, P.A. any other John Doe ("John Doe") Furr & Cohen, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Furr & Cohen, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("FC").

26. Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., any other John Doe ("John Doe") Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MMSS").

27. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Jeffrey Friedstein ("Friedstein"); Sheldon Friedstein (S. Friedstein"), Donald G. Kane ("Kane"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("GS").

28. David B. Simon, Esq. ("D. Simon")

29. Sachs Saxs & Klein, P.A. any other John Doe ("John Doe") Sachs Saxs & klein, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Sachs Saxs & klein, pa related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MMSS").

30. Huizenga Holdings Incorporated any other John Doe ("John Doe") Huizenga Holdings Incorporated affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Huizenga Holdings Incorporated related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MMSS").

31. Eliot I. Bernstein, ("Bernstein") a resident of the State of California, and former President (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and the founder of Iviewit and principal inventor of its technology. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Bernstein").
32. P. Stephen Lamont, ("Lamont") a resident of the State of New York, and former Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Lamont"); and

33. Any other known or unknown person or known or unknown entity not named herein that will cause your review of the complaint you are charged with investigating to be biased by any conflicting past, present, or future financial interest or any other interest?

NO YES (please describe below)
II. Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, receive salary or other remuneration or financial considerations from any entity related to the enclosed parties to the proceeding of the matters?

NO YES (please describe below)
III. Have you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate, had any prior conversations or correspondences of any kind, with any person related to the proceeding of the Iviewit or related matters?

NO YES (please describe below)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements in this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM are true and correct.

Executed on this __ day of ________ 2007 the foregoing statements in this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM are true. I am aware that any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, including possible culpability in the attempted murder of the inventor Eliot Bernstein and his wife and children in a car bombing attempt on their lives.

I agree to accept responsibility for the unbiased review, and presentation of findings to the appropriate party(ies) who also have executed this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM. Failure to execute and return this CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM by facsimile to 530-529-4110 or by mail to c/o Eliot I. Bernstein, 39 Little Avenue, Red Bluff, Cal. 96080 within fifteen (15) days shall constitute an admission of conflicts of interest in the matters.

Signature__________________________________________________
If you are unable to sign such document and are therefore unable to continue to further pursue these matters, then a statement of whom we may contact in situations where you may be in conflict with the matters would be necessary.

A mailed copy can be sent to:
Iviewit
Eliot I. Bernstein

www.iviewit.tv

Source
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ouJRc_Oeqh8J:www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%252006%252028%2520EPO%2520Kendrick%2520Response.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+questions&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
C

The Honorable Senator John L. Sampson - From Eliot Bernstein

The Honorable Senator John L. Sampson
Chairman of the New York State Standing Committee On The Judiciary
New York State Senate
NYS Senate Judiciary Committee

Monday, October 05, 2009

Re: Submission of Prepared Statement Regarding Testimony of Eliot I. Bernstein at September 24, 2009 Public Hearing, For Inclusion in The Public Record for the Hearings Regarding the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct

Dear Honorable Senator John L. Sampson,

Thank you for your courage in conducting the first Hearing on June 08, 2009 and the second Hearing of the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee on September 24, 2009 regarding the NY Judicial and Attorney Disciplinary processes.

Enclosed please find a Written copy of the Prepared Statement and Exhibits that accompanies my testimony for the NYS Senate Judiciary Committee for inclusion in the public records of the hearings. As you may recall, I flew to Albany on June 8, 2009 from Boca Raton, Florida to provide testimony yet denied the opportunity to testify that day because of the now infamous Senate Coup in Albany that took place in the Capital Building, shutting down the hearings immediately prior to my testifying.

Again, on September 24, 2009, I appeared at the second hearing in Manhattan at 250 Broadway in New York and testified but was unable to finish my testimony before the Committee, yet I am most thankful for even the limited time I had, as already it yielded the Committees interest and intervention in certain matters.

As you may recall, interruptions occurred through parts of my Testimony while you discussed issues with William Galison who was videotaping Mr. Alan Friedberg, current head of the First Department Appellate Discipline Committee and Mr. Alan Tembeckjian, Chief Counsel of the current NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct. Several minutes of my testimony interrupted as Friedberg and Tembeckjian became very uncomfortable with videotaping at a Public Hearing, which I found highly unusual for Public Officials.

In the event that a third hearing is scheduled, if the Committee would be so kind and has available time resources, as I know many victims lined the room hoping to testify at the last hearing, I request additional time for further testimony to be publically entered into the record. I hereby request that my Prepared Statement be accepted for the Record of these Judiciary Hearings before the NY State Senate, as I was promised by both Timothy Spotts and Lisa Lashley that the Prepared Statement and all exhibits would be submitted to the entire Committee and for inclusion into the record.

I therefore respectfully request an Acknowledgement notice from your Office as current Chair of the Committee that this letter and the attached Prepared Statement were docketed officially in the record.

As captured in the live testimony provided on September 24, 20091, I asked the Committee to determine the status and location of my complaints against Alan Friedberg, current Chief Counsel of the First Department Appellate Division Discipline Committee and Roy L. Reardon Partner at Simpson Thacher appointed to a three-year term as Chairman of the Appellate Division, First Department Disciplinary Committee, the complaints now falling far outside the procedural response time.

May the Committee also take formal notice that the complaints against Friedberg and Reardon arose from their handling complaints filed against Lawyers in Conflict in my Federal Lawsuit and where the First Department and First Department Disciplinary Committee are both Defendants in the same Lawsuit, again conflict beyond belief.

Arrangements were made with Monica Connell of the New York Attorney General’s Office who is representing the First Department Defendants, to have the complaints moved prior to any action by the First Department, to a Non-Conflicted Third Party prior to even reviewing them. Instead, the First Department ignored the requests and decision of their representative counsel, the NYAG and moved to Dismiss the Complaints against other Defendants in the Lawsuit that they are Defendants in as well.

Defendants, dismissing complaints against other Defendants, complaints directly related to the Lawsuit they are Defendants in, creating overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety through violations of Title 18 and State Obstruction Laws, Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes and Violations of the Rules and Regulation of the First Department Disciplinary itself.

The Dismissals instantly appealed, yet again, we have still heard nothing back from the First Department or their counsel the NYAG and certain procedural rules appear broken. At the same time the appeal was timely filed, formal written complaints were lodged against Friedberg and Reardon, again requesting, no demanding, the complaints be moved to a Non-Conflicted third party by the NYAG from the First Department.

Complications also arise since the NYAG is also a Defendant in the Lawsuit and thus calls then were made to the NYAG’s office whereby Steven M. Cohen2, Andrew Cuomo’s Chief of Staff, claimed that neither he nor Andrew Cuomo was aware of the situation unfolding and that he would personally look into the matters.

The original call to the NYAG’s office prior to Cohen’s involvement was made to ascertain whom to file Title 18 Obstruction charges with against the NYAG and First Department.

I await the formal response from the NYAG and again urge this Committee to intercede and find out exactly who will be investigating the matters and complaints in a situation where it appears almost everyone involved or who is supposed to be protecting citizen’s rights have Conflicts of Interest in New York concerning these matters.

It should be noted that similar to the Whistleblower Anderson, central to this Committees investigation, the NYAG is representing the State Defendants against the Plaintiff, not vice versa.

Especially twisted in this scenario is there is a Whistleblower exposing Public Office Corruption, which should legally obligate the NYAG to represent the Whistleblower through its Public Integrity Division responsible for investigating corruption by Public Officials, therefore the NYAG should be representing the Whistleblower, the Legally “Related” Lawsuits and the Public Interest and not the accused Public Officials.

Yet we find the NYAG representing the accused Public Officials they should be investigating in the Anderson Whistleblower Lawsuit and the lawsuits Legally “Related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, despite the fact that Scheindlin has referred the related cases to the NYAG.

This leaves the question of just who is representing the People and are the People paying for the defenses of the accused Public Officials on the Public Dime and finally does this not put the NYAG in a Conflict of Interest that acts to Obstruct Justice by preventing Prosecution.

The NYAG’s Conflict of Interest is more insipid, as it also acts to Obstruct Justice as the conflicted representation makes it impossible for the NYAG to investigate and prosecute those they are representing, representing on STATE TAXPAYERS money.

Absolutely obscene and as the citizens of New York discover that the NYAG is representing, not prosecuting Public Officials in allegations of Public Office Crimes by Whistleblowers, which they are charged with investigating, the Public will Lose Faith in the Public Offices designed to protect them.

It will make them sick when they find that this illegal representation is on Public Finances and there will be hell to pay for those involved who have created this nifty shield from prosecution. I remind this Committee of New York Penal Code §195.00 that states:

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit: 2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

As the video tapes of the hearings reveal, upon request for the Committee intervention, you Senator Sampson asked Mr. Friedberg to look into where the missing complaints were and inform the Committee of the Status and Mr. Friedberg claimed he would look into them.

Not that his representative counsel in my Lawsuit against the First Department would look into them but that he personally would look into them, which again would violate entirely rules regarding Conflicts, yet it was very revealing of how things operate now at the First Department. Respectfully, I await the Committee’s determination as to the location and status of these Complaints and what non conflicted third party the complaints should transfer too. The complaints against Reardon and Friedberg and the others footnoted herein3.

As a final matter, I look forward to timely receiving a signed copy of my Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form, attached to the Prepared Statement from yourself and the other members of the Committee or any other person this Committee may join to investigate the matters further. I also respectfully request that all information and testimony I have rendered the Committee be turned over to the Task Force the Committee is starting as stated in the hearings for immediate review and investigation.

I again thank you for your courageous efforts in the face of Corruption and more respect you for your upfront disclosure in the hearing that you previously worked for the main accused in my allegations, the Proskauer Rose law firm.


Respectfully Yours,


Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor


Link To Source of Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+question&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
p
p

Roy L. Reardon, DRAFT Response to Roy Reardon - New York Supreme Court Appellate Division - Chairman

DRAFT Response to Roy Reardon, New York Supreme Court
How Long Can This Guy handle Complaints against Himself, be involved Coverups, Conspiracies, and the Stealing of a Trillion Dollar Patent by way of ignoring complaints and DOING Nothing?
r
Here is the Responce to Roy L. Reardon NY Supreme Court
from Eliot Bernstein.
r
Monday, December 14, 2009
I-VIEW-IT HOLDINGS, INC.
I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
TO: Roy L. Reardon
Chairman
New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division First
Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee
61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
(212) 401-0800
also Partner @
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3954

Regarding: Your Continued Insanity in handling complaints against YOURSELF, Alan W. Friedberg and Other Defendents in a Twelve Count - Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Legally Related to a Whistleblower Causing Mass Liablity, you are Concealing from the State of New York and the People of New York.
roy reardon
Dear Mr. Reardon,
I. Response to Your Letter Dated December 07, 2009.
Your audacity bemuses me and allow me to retort to your and Mr. Friedberg’s
insanity and again put forth some basic realities regarding your misconduct and criminal
acts.

First, my seventy-eight page complaint against Mr. Friedberg and YOU, if you
have read it, is also a RE-FILED complaint against you, this letter shall serve as a third
and a bit more severe complaint.

Your letter is in response to the earlier complaints against Mr. Friedberg and yourself that you buried since February 2009, until sequestered by the NEW YORK STATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, which requested that you provide information regarding the CONCEALED complaints to them, not me.

Nevertheless, in delusion, you responded to me regarding your complaints and tried to
dismiss complaints against yourself and your partner in crime, Mr. Friedberg, while your
department is in a lawsuit with me. In that lawsuit, your department has representative
ILLEGALLY retained counsel, the New York Attorney General and yet you continue to
pester me with your continued handling of your own and Mr. Friedberg’s complaints, as well as, attempting ILLEGALLY to dismiss complaints against other defendants in the
lawsuit.

Let me dissect your letters errors one by one before I begin my further FORMAL
COMPLAINT against you in addition to the one you have buried for months and now try
to dismiss:

1. First, you state, “Your 78 page fax dated December 3, 2009 labeled as a
complaint against Chief Counsel Alan W. Friedberg has been referred to me.”
The problem in this statement is that you fail to see that the 78 Page Fax
Complaint, is a re-filing of the complaint you have admitted to concealing
since February 2009 against both YOU and Mr. Friedberg.

The FORMAL COMPLAINT is actually against you and Mr. Friedberg, so had you really
read the Complaint, you would see it would be impossible for it to be referred to you, as you are a Main Character in the Complaint. I resubmitted that complaint due ONLY to your prior CONCEALMENT of OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.

I have attached herein, that same complaint but have individually broke it out for you with your very own cover page. By the by, your inappropriate letter that defies ethics again has NO FORMAL DOCKETING number for the Friedberg case, so I wonder how to appeal it or
if it has been CONCEALED again.

2. Next, you claim laughably, “Among other things, the document contains
copies of letters from you to State Senator John L. Sampson of the New York
Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that the DDC has engaged in conflicts of
interest, corruption and other wrongful acts. We find no merit in those
accusations.”

The silliness of your statement here, although criminal in
nature, is very telling of your cognizance of the allegations contained in the
FORMAL COMPLAINT that was CONCEALED and further stands as
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONTINUED CRIMINAL
CONDUCT in trying to dismiss complaints you and your whole department
are conflicted in, Mr. Friedberg and yourself especially, since you have
FORMAL COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST BOTH OF YOU.

Now it becomes a bit dicey for you, as your RULES AND REGULATIONS OF YOUR DEPARTMENT CLAIM § 605.6 Investigations and Informal Proceedings

(g) Preliminary Screening of Complaints. Any complaint
received by the Office of Chief Counsel against a member
of the Committee or Staff counsel involving alleged
misconduct shall be transmitted forthwith to the Committee
Chairperson, who shall assign it either to the Office of
Chief Counsel or to special counsel who shall conduct or
direct the appropriate investigation, and give a written
recommendation as to the disposition of the Complaint to
the Committee Chairperson, who shall determine the
appropriate disposition of the Complaint.

Any such Complaint which relates to the Committee Chairperson shall, in the first instance, be transmitted to a Hearing Panel Chairperson, who shall conduct the appropriate investigation and determine the appropriate disposition of the Complaint.

My complaint Mr. Roy Reardon is a twofold problem for you as the FORMAL COMPLAINTS YOU HAVE CONCEALED SINCE FEBRUARY 2009, are against YOU, acting as the Chair of the DDC and your partner in crime, Mr. Alan Friedberg, acting as Chief Counsel.

It is clever how in your SELF DISMISSING LETTER which defies ethics, you try and CONCEAL that Friedberg’s complaint has been transferred to you, which according to your own rules would be a violation, as the COMPLAINT is also against YOU.

Thus, you are AGAIN violating your OWN rules by trying to hide that you
also are knowingly COMPLAINED of FORMALLY, by way of the Sampson
Letters you have received several times now and the ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT I re-filed. Nice try, though, “desperate men…”

3. Amazingly, your letter continues “In any event, your new "complaint" against
Mr. Friedberg provides no basis on which the Committee should pursue
action.” First, there is NO NEW COMPLAINT, this is merely a re-filing of
the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT you have ILLEGALLY CONCEALED in
violation of LAW against both you and Mr. Alan W. Friedberg and now your trying to
make it as a new complaint is both ridiculous and further criminal and will so
be reported to ALL appropriate oversight authorities and criminal
investigators of your continued violations and further attempt at CRIMINAL
CONCEALMENT.

Second, since you should not be handling complaints against yourself or your partner in crime Mr. Friedberg, it defies logic and law how you claim there is no basis in a complaint against yourself and where you should have already turned the matter over, per your rules you would have to turn the matter over to a Hearing Panel Chair, which obviously you fail to do in regard to the FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AND MR.
FRIEDBERG.

Again serving as prima facie evidence of your CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, this statement will also be forwarded to all
appropriate oversight of your continued CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

4. The next statement truly shows your detachment from both reality and the
rules and regulations that define ETHICS. I quote your insanity, “Indeed, you
appear to be arguing that anyone associated with the Committee is precluded
from considering the merits of your complaint.” Yes indeed Mr. Reardon I do
make the claim that NOBODY in your department can handle these
complaints and for several factual reasons.

First, your department is a DEFENDANT in a 12-COUNT, 12-TRILLION dollar LAWSUIT, which I am certain you are not concealing from state auditors, well, perhaps you could clarify that for me in writing, as I am sure you are reporting the liability on
your and the states books, liabilities directly related to your CRIMINAL
CONDUCT and CONTINUED CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

As DEFENDANT’S in the ONGOING LEGAL ACTION the whole First
Department is precluded from involvement due to CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST and THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY this creates.
Next, the CONFLICTS and APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY also act
together to create CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS. This CRIMINAL ACT, also will be reported to your
oversight and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

As the First Department DDC is a DEFENDANT in the LAWSUIT, the DDC
also has representative ILLEGAL counsel, the New York Attorney General
and Monica Connell of their offices.

Upon filing the complaints against other DEFENDANTS in the same LAWSUIT, Ms. Connell advised me as YOUR COUNSEL to file the complaints with your offices against the Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner attorneys (as the attorneys complained of are licensed
there) but that they would be moved instantly to a NON CONFLICTED
THIRD PARTY.

Moved to avoid the OBVIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY your handling of the complaints creates.

Yet, somehow, you sneaky dog, you and your partner in
crime, Mr. Friedberg, interceded and attempted to DISMISS COMPLAINTS
AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THE LAWSUIT YOUR
DEPARTMENT IS A NAMED DEFENDANT IN.

Again, these CONFLICTS act to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and will duly be noted to all
oversight of the DDC and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

Therefore, your question asks if I think anyone in your department can handle
these complaints and the answer is NO THEY CANNOT and I advise YOU,
Mr. Friedberg and any other department official that each act on these
complaints will result in further FORMAL COMPLAINTS to your oversight
and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.

5. Your letter continues insanely “On October 7, 2009 I wrote to you advising that your previous complaints against Mr. Friedberg and other attorneys have been closed.” Now here your sneakiness is better than a proverbial “snake in the grass” as you attempt to state that my previous complaints filed against you and Mr. Friedberg for dismissing complaints against other DEFENDANTS are closed. Mixing apples and oranges while hiding the beef.

First, my previous complaints against other attorneys, resulted in you and Mr.
Friedberg handling them, leading to separate complaints against both you and
Mr. Friedberg.

Love how you refer to “other attorneys” in a third person voice, versus
identifying that YOU Mr. Reardon, are one of the “other” attorneys you
reference. Do you often refer to yourself in the third person; this is a very
symbolic sign of pathological behavior indicating delusion. Perhaps you
could have written more accurately, something like – your complaints against
Mr. Friedberg, MYSELF and other attorneys.

Again, you CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS, which creates further CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
Finally, I am not sure how the FORMAL COMPLAINTS can be closed when they have not been opened formally with Complaint Numbers for me to even respond too, as demanded in my complaint and as part of the RULES and REGULATIONS of your department that you psychotically continue to ignore, ah, “desperate men…”

6. Finally, this my favorite act of your insanity, I quote, “You may wish to
consider consulting with counsel regarding the matters raised in your
submissions.” To be clear, I have consulted counsel, YOUR COUNSEL the
New York Attorney General and it was determined that you are conflicted and
cannot handle complaints against other Defendants nor yourself and Mr.
Friedberg, per your own departmental Rules and Regulation, Part 600, per the
Attorney Code of Conduct and Law. The result, was to have the complaints moved to a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY.

I advise you therefore to consider consulting with YOUR COUNSEL regarding the matters raised against you CRIMINALLY and then CIVIL charges against you and your
department in the civil complaint.

I advise you to consult your counsel as to further pestering me directly, where
as you know, I represent myself Pro Se, so it is highly unethical and against
the Attorney Conduct Code for you, an attorney, to be contacting me directly
when you have representative counsel.

I find teaching your ethics at this point to be an utter waste of my time, as you seem not be able to discern realistically what your own ethical obligations are, nor what the Rules
you are charged with oversighting state and finally the Law.

I therefore highly recommend that you discontinue with contacting me directly and have
your attorney handle these matters going forward.

Of course, your attorney, the New York Attorney General, is also a DEFENDANT in my LAWSUIT and his representation is therefore suspect as aiding and abetting illegally your department through CONFLICTED representation that VIOLATES the NYAG Rules Public Office Rule 17 for one and that ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION also compounds to cause
Obstruction of Justice as the Conflict precludes the NYAG from doing his public duty of investigating dirty rotten Public Officials, like yourself and Mr. Friedberg.

As my LAWSUIT has been marked legally “RELATED” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin to that of the First Department DDC Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson, we see that Anderson similarly is complaining that the NYAG illegal representation of State Defendants from your offices, is a Violation of the NYAG Rules and Regulations and Law, whereby you can get a gander for her position at the following URL, incorporated by reference in entirety herein @ ____________

The allegations in the FORMAL COMPLAINTS against Mr. Friedberg and yourself are replete with concrete evidence of crimes you are committing by violating the very ethics laws you and Mr. Friedberg are in charge of upholding. Conflicts like your department and several of the First Department Judges are direct defendants in a TWELVE COUNT, TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL LAWSUIT that of course, I know you are not too delusional to have reported this liability and your involvement to any state auditors, state agencies and others who have liability resulting from your continued criminal conduct.

The very fact that you attempt to ignore the conflicts and continue to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE in violation of FEDERAL and STATE CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION LAWS, ATTORNEY ETHICS CODES and more will be formally reported to your oversight and criminal authorities.

Yet, while your letter attempts to claim no conflict, almost, you failed to sign and
return the CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM attached to the
COMPLAINT. This failure serves as further evidence of your CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION through CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which now will be formulated
along with this letter, to several of your oversight authorities, as a FORMAL AFFIRMED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.

Under the laws of NEW YORK and the UNITED STATES, in the interim until authorities can arrest you for your felonious acts, I place you under CITIZENS ARREST and I advise you not only to seek independent counsel but also to turn yourself in to the proper authorities for processing for FELONY charges both state and federal.

I remind you that I have sent the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK
and FEDERAL AUTHORITIES information regarding your involvement in RICO
related crimes, along with many in your department.

Quite contrary to your claim, I do not think anyone in your CORRUPT COMMITTEE or DEPARTMENT can handle these complaints without conflict and if you are so confident in your meritorious good work on behalf of the Good People of New York, you should welcome a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY review, as certainly you have nothing to hide.

Nothing to hide but everything, including the complaint against yourself that you keep concealing, even in your recent reply trying to dismiss the FORMAL COMPLAINT
against Mr. Friedberg while failing to state that you are also complained of since February of 2009, making your handling of any complaints, including your own, not only conflicted but criminal. Your attached letter, mentions other attorneys complained of but
fails to mention that YOU sir are one of those complained of and therefore are certainly
conflicted.

II. Actions to be Taken
• Please see 78 Page Complaint Against You filed for a Second Time since
February 2009 after you concealed those complaints

• This complaint is a refilling of that complaint and submission to the
Judiciary Committee for Oversight of Your Office and pursuing criminal investigations
within their scope of power over your Department, as part of the ONGOING
INVESTIGATION BY THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ABOUT YOUR and YOUR DEPARTMENTS FAILURE IN TOTO.

• Note that we are attaching copy of a SWORN AFFIRMED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT to all of the following, including but not limited to,
o Blah
o Blah

III. Conclusion
According to Whistleblower Christine Anderson under sworn oath in a Federal
Court and many others who have come forth to expose the ongoing Whitewashing of
Complaints, your offices are alleged to be involved in criminal obstruction of official
proceedings and threatening federal witnesses.

Nice reputation for an ETHICS department but we will get to that in a moment.

Not only are your offices accused of obstructing proceedings against “Favored Law Firms and Lawyers” but further criminal Whitewashing of Complaints was also alleged in regard to Whitewashing disciplinary complaints for the US Attorney, District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney by the “Cleaner”.

The “Cleaner” aka Naomi Goldstein of your offices, so named by your former Staff Attorney, Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson your offices should be under not only internal investigation but external.

Again, solid reasons for you and your entire department’s recusal from further involvement, other than turning yourself in and getting non-conflicted counsel to represent you.

Further, and most importantly, your failure to regulate the misconducts of the lawyers in your department according to well established rules and regulations of your department, you have failed this great nation and the People of the Great State of New York in your obfuscations of regulation.

For example, had you done your job investigating Proskauer Rose for example when I first complained, your department could have saved many peoples losses in the Sir Allan Stanford affairs, where Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom ( a former SEC Enforcement Employee ) were involved in teaching employees how to lie to Federal Authorities and have been sued for the entire amount of the Ponzi losses in a Global Class Action lawsuit.

My recommendation will be for any unrecoverable losses that those VICTIMS sue you and
your department for failure to regulate and possible conspiratorial roles in the cover up of
the crimes.

Had you investigated Proskauer Rose when I first informed you of their misconducts
and crimes, you also could have prevented many people over the 7 seven years from
losing their lives savings in the Bernard Madoff affair and saved the hundreds of charities
destroyed by Madoff and lives ruined.

Yes, you are the oversight that could have prevented these calamities and are responsible for your failures to the victims. In fact, since Proskauer appears to have senior partners basically running the First Department and the Ethics Department from Steven C. Krane, a Proskauer partner caught handling his own and his firms complaints while an officer of the First Department DDC, to recently deceased DDC officer Stephen Rakowe Kaye, a Proskauer partner and married to former Chief Judge Judith Kaye who had ultimate control over the department with her husband and Krane her former clerk, no wonder complaints bounced off them into your trash can.

Yet and personally more tragic, is the fact that had you done your job regulating
the attorneys, your “favored law firms and lawyers” most likely a BOMB would not have
been placed in my family minivan ( images at www.iviewit.tv ) allowing someone to
ATTEMPT to MURDER us.

It is strange to note how the timing of that event coincided with discovery that STEVEN C. KRANE of Proskauer and Thomas Cahill ( former Chief Counsel of the DDC ) where found violating First Department DDC Rules and Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law leading to the First Department Court, in inanimous consent, transferring complaints against Krane of PROSKAUER and also a FIRST DEPARTMENT OFFICER, Krane’s Proskauer partners he was representing ILLEGALLY in complaints while a DDC OFFICER and even Krane representing himself while an officer ( sounds familiar ).

Thomas Cahill also was transferred for Special Inquiry at that time and your recent handling of that complaint, with Mr. Stephen Lamont and attempting to dismiss that complaint, again while really clever, will also be further evidence of your CRIMINAL ACTS filed with CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES.

Lest us not forget to remind those judging your actions of the fact that your
department is supposed to regulate Wall Street lawyers and we can all see what your lax
regulations have produced.

I also remind you that your department appears to be the regulator for several fine attorneys in the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel who are being accused of war crimes for their violations of ethics and law that have allowed the torture and murder of innocent untried people, quite similar to Nazi Extermination Camps where habeas rights similarly were removed by dirty rotten lawyers, who were actually criminals with legal degrees who made concentration camps and murder legal for undesirables.

I remind you of the Judges Trial so that today while you feel elevated above the law, enough so to first conceal and then attempt to dismiss complaints against yourself, in drunken and high delusions of grandeur, that one day you will be tried for these crimes as Justice is restored and even the Nazi lawyers and judges had their day in the infamous Judges Trial at the Nuremberg Trials. I await hearing your defenses from behind the glass.

Truly, and I mean this FIGURATIVELY not LITERALLY, I hope this letter feels
like a bomb in your car and you may live with your family in similar trepidation that one
day your world will end, when your scam ends and you are tried in a fair and impartial
court, free of conflict ( you know the thing your supposed to be protecting ) where
hopefully you will serve the remainder of your life contemplating the magnanimity of the
damage you have done to my family, my shareholders, those you have embroiled in your
crimes like Ms. Anderson, those victims of your crimes that appear lining up with each
new Judiciary Committee, all those who lost homes or 401k’s from lawyers schemes in
an unregulated capacity free to commit financial crimes, as the REGULATOR, YOU was
naught more than a criminal in on the crimes.

Most DisRespectfully Yours,

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
cc/ec:

Roy L. Reardon
Chairman Monday, December 14, 2009
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee

Re: YOUR CONTINUED INSANITY IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOURSELF,
ALAN W. FRIEDBERG AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN A TWELVE COUNT TWELVE
TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT LEGALLY RELATED TO A WHISTLEBLOWER
CAUSING MASS LIABILITY YOU ARE CONCEALING FROM THE STATE AND
PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM YOUR CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT
roy reardon
Iviewit Holdings , Inc.
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.


Source:
www.iviewit.tv
r
Much More on Roy L. Reardon Coming Soon.
r

Steven C. Krane - Proskauer Rose, Conflict of Interest

Click Below for Bio and Affiliations

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2005%2026%20Krane%20Bio.pdf

r

r

Skull and Bones Connections and Information

Examing the Skull and Bones connection because they are on lists of people / groups involved. This kind of Money and Trillion Dollar Technology Grab, Well you would have to be VERY political Connected, and would have to have Old Money, HUGE money and a connection within EVERY government and political agencies or how would you pull off a Trillion Dollar patent Heist with No One Looking into ANY of it.
r
For More Information go to..
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/skull4.pdf
r
Also Just Google "Skull and Bones" and read other offline information on Secrete Societies. It is no longer conspiracty theory or pie in the sky.. this stuff is very real and is a big part of your life whether you see it or believe it or not..
r

The Working Families Party - Formor Supreme Court Judge Judith S. Kaye is at it Again - How Many will she Hurt this Time?

"By Elizabeth Benjamin

The Working Families Party has received a subpoena from the US Attorney's Office for the Southern District seeking information in connection with its efforts in the 2009 elections, a spokesman for the labor-backed party confirmed.

WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor said in a statement that the party is "cooperating fully" with the probe, adding:

"We welcome this inquiry, and are confident that it will ultimately demonstrate what we have said before: Our work has complied with both the spirit and letter of New York City’s Campaign Finance Law as well as all relevant state and federal election laws, tax and not-for-profit corporation laws."

Cantor urged WFP candidates who have been contacted by investigators to follow the party's lead and cooperate.

The WFP stepped up its work in city campaigns during this election cycle, and drew considerable scrutiny - particularly from City Hall's Edward-Isaac Dovere - for its closely intertwined network of for-profit and non-profit enterprises.

The party is being sued for its work on Staten Island Councilwoman-elect Debi Rose's campaign. A judge ruled last week that the trial can go forward.

It was also the subject of at least one complaint filed with the CFB.

Three days after the Nov. 3 elections, the party announced it had hired Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom to conduct a thorough review of the structure and relationship between the WFP and its for-profit arm, Data & Field Services. The review is being led by former Chief Judge Judith Kaye.

Sources say the party is paying dearly for Kaye's time and good name: Somewhere in the neighborhood of $1,000 an hour. .

In his statement, Cantor expressed a desire for a "prompt resolution" to the investigation. It goes without saying that the longer this stretches on, the worse it will be for the party - particularly if it continues deep into the 2010 cycle.
r

It's hard to overstate how bad this could be for the WFP.

The WFP, like all third parties, counts on its ballot status and New York's unusual cross-endorsement rule to lure candidates - and votes - to its line: Row E. (The party has been trying to knock the Conservatives from Row D for some time now, but so far to no avail).

If the WFP's gubernatorial candidate doesn't receive at least 50,000 votes on the party's line, it loses its ballot status and has to wait four years to try to get it back.

It's highly unlikely that a would-be governor - particularly one who is, say, currently in the attorney general's office - is going to want to accept a line from a party that is under investigation.

Source of Article and to Read more:
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/12/wfp-subpoenaed.html#ixzz0ZslRarON
r
So is Former Supreme Court Judge Judith S. Kaye Really the Right person for this Job?
r
What is in it for her or shall I say what's in it for Proskauer Rose, as we know Judith Kaye was in Direct Conflict of Interest with the Iviewit Scandal of a Trillion Dollar Patent Heist, as her husband was at Proskauer Rose and her Supposed Unbiased Supreme Court influence could be said was to protect her husband company name.
r
We know that Proskauer Rose did a Supposed Independent Investigation of ACORN. They are all so connected that there is no room for Justice.
p
Judith Kaye reviewing "Structure and Relationships" what a Crock.

She was NOT unbiased as a Supreme Court Judge. Judith S. Kaye was married to someone at Proskauer Rose and in My Opinion was directly responsible for the insiders actions of the New York Supreme Court in allowing this Trillion Dollar Patent / Invention to be Stolen at the hands of Proskauer Rose. So just keep on pummeling the People with indiscretions, affiliation's, conflicts of interest and blatant attacks who cares.. Right?
r
Judith S. Kaye should not be allowed to Practice Law little own a $1000 dollar an hour job, after her involvement in a Trillion Dollar Fraud against the US Patent Office, against the REAL Iviewit Inventors and Against the Iviewit Shareholders.
r
Judith S. Kaye seems to condone the Stealing Of Patents, the Lack of Ethics and Crimes of Patent Attorney, and Well how in the World can Judith Kaye be on the Right Side of the Moral Compass on this one? Judith S. Kaye simply cannot care about this issue and do right by the people if she has no problem letting the Company her husband is with, Proskauer Rose be involved with the Stealing of a Trillion Dollar Patent, Inventors Lives Threatened, Cars Bombed and Lives Ruined ... Oh well as Long as One can "Save Face" for this HUGE - Law Firm that has seemingly more clout then anyone can every imagine.. Right.. People don't Matter only Politics..
r

Kenneth Rubenstein Conflict of Interest Issue over the Iviewit Stolen Patent - Rubenstein Patent Evaluator, Stockholder, MPEGLA Attorney ....

Some of the Conflicts of Interest - Kenneth Rubenstein - Proskauer Rose

Is anyone Listening?

Does the FBI, the SEC, the US Patent Office or the Depart of Justice even care about ANYONE who breaks the law to this extent? Or do they just look the other way because of the Big - REALLY BIG money and political power that is at play here.

And if this makes them look away ... well then there is NO JUSTICE system at all and your Tax Dollars paying to have one is the Biggest Hoax on You in a long line of Hoax's and Illustions.

So Conflicts of Interest Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP

MPEGLA - Proskauer Rose Client with Kenneth Rubenstein as Patent Evaluator ( on this also see Rubenstein Deposition and Response to New York Bar.)

DVD Patent Pool - Proskauer Rose Client with Kenneth Rubenstein as Patent Evaluator.

Proskauer Rose Clients

Investors Relied on Kenneth Rubenstein

Private Placement Documents Edited, Reviewed, and Disseminated by Proskauer Rose contain Kenneth Rubenstein as Advisor, and also a Shareholder of Iviewit.