MPEG LA, DVD Licensing, Toshiba - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division

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

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

" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064

Dear Mr. Ramos:

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

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

I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats

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

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

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

(2) established the Standard Specifications.

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

II. The Proposed Arrangement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Full Letter and Source of Post
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm

Save and Print the Above for Your Records.

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

No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.

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

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

Eliot Bernstein Testimony New York Senate Judiciary on Iviewit Scandal, Cover Ups, and Corruption.

Eliot Bernstein Testimony NY Senate Judiciary Part 1
Trillion Dollar Lawsuit, Attempted Murder, Court Corruption
Patent Attorney Corruption, and Mass Fraud on the Courts in ALL
Judicial Branches, the USPTO and Multiple Supreme Courts.



Eliot Bernstein Testimony NY Senate Judiciary Part 2
Iviewit Technologies - Eliot Bernstein Testifies on
Massive Corruption Surrounding
the Stealing of the Iviewit Technology.



More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud and Major Corruption in the
Iviewit Stolen Intellectual Property Scandal ... Go to..

www.DeniedPatent.com


www.Iviewit.TV


www.JeffreyBewkes.com


www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

Lockheed Martin Corruption, Foley-Lardner Corruption, Proskauer Rose Corruption, Intel Corp. Corruption, Time Warner Inc. Corruption, Greenberg Traurig, Michael Grebe, New York Second Department, Joseph Leccese Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Sony, Doug Chey, AOL, New York Supreme Court, Florida Supreme Court, USPTO Corruption,

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney for MPEG LA - Involves Attorney Raymond Anthony Joao.

Kenneth Rubenstein 's lackey, attorney Raymond Anthony Joao, who was a patent attorney working DIRECTLY under Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein 's direction.

Raymond Joao now claims 90 patents in his own name and Iviewit gives him kudos as the greatest slime ball inventor and patent attorney.

No really, Iviewit considers our former counselors Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein to be nothing more than co-inventors of a system and method to defraud shareholders and inventors of their inventions and commit fraud upon worldwide patent intellectual property organizations, an invention that should carry some stiff federal sentences.

Click here for a press article on the amazing inventiveness of Joao

Raymond Joao was so non-inventive that many of these patents resemble ideas and concepts lifted straight from the Iviewit business plan and invention disclosures and ideas that he was supposed to be patenting for the inventors and shareholders.

More on Raymond Joao Click Here

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


More on Iviewit Massive Shareholder Fraud

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

www.iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

posthed here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

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

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

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


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6 - Final

www.Iviewit.TV
For More on Iviewit

www.ProskauerSucks.com
more on Proskauer Rose Corruption

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

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

Intel Capital and McKinsey & Co.- Trillions in Fraud - All Roads Lead Back to Proskauer Rose - DO your HOMEWORK!!

Intel Capital, McKinsey and Company, Galleon Group, Intel CEO Paul Otellini - my Whistleblower sites are lit up with searches connecting these folks.. so whats the deal.. All in on the Iview Stolen Patent that's a Given.. ( www.Iviewit.TV ) - However why isn't this old news.. Intel and Mckinsey in bed together and well How many More Billions did IBM executives, Intel Executives and IBM's Robert Moffat, Mckinsey Make off with ????

Why is those involved in the Iviewit Stolen Patent protected by the SEC and seemingly all Judicial Branches.. yet some incidents like the Galleon Fraud and the Standford Billions.. the Madoff millions.. surfaces.. ?? you Have to wonder if this kind of money is told to the public of FRAUD and Deception .. well how much did they cover up and what SEC attorney helped them.. as the Business Model shows that the Attorneys at the SEC favor certain law firms.. certain companies and often times get High Political Office after their Tenure at the SEC and / or cushy high paying jobs at the law firms that represented the company that the SEC "crony" is protecting... Suck as Proskauer Rose.. who seems to be involved in ALL these Multi-Billion dollar scandals. And Never seemed to be called to the mat on the fraud and corruption that they have enabled their clients to do.. little own the money they move Offshore for hte Clients that cheat the public and the SEC Crony helps them to accomplish this..

In a down economy Corruption still pays and Behind ALL Corruption in the Billions.. well I know this is generalizing and well it is my Opinion .. however.. it seems to me that All Billion - Trillion Dollar Corruption leads back to some lawyer at Proskauer Rose..

Proskauer Rose Law firm is the Elite of the Elite. .and well just like in the movies.. they have Deep Dark Secret.. Big Time Favors Owed.. Deadly Cover Ups.. faked deaths... fraud. .corruption and well they have connection in every political party, every court, every judical branch and process in the world and WELL above the Law is an understatement when it comes to the Magical Wall of Corruption that Proskauer Rose can Pull Off.

Proskauer Rose .. Business is Good.. why not work with the Law Firm that Controls the Government, Controls the Judges, the Ethics Committees, accesses or somehow controls billion dollar investments, can move money offshore for you, can get a car bomb in just the right location, can threaten witnesses to the Point of Silence.. .a Law Firm that can Control Internet Searches - Control the News... Pull of Trillion Dollar Patent Thefts such as the Iviewit Stolen Patent.. and Collapse Enron with False Investment Schemes.. Yet still the Lawyers.. the CEO's make off with Billions while hard working citizens drown in corporate elite favortism..

Just what Can't Proskauer Rose LLP pull off.. I mean a New General Counsel just months before the old one.. hmmm suddenly has a heart attack and dies.. hmmm. WHAT?

Just look at who works at Proskauer Rose, what connections and favors they bring.. and how this ties into stocks.. investments.. big money and big secrets. .now tie that into the Department of Jusice, the Attorney Bar, the SEC, the Patent Office and other Supposed agencies that are meant ot protect YOU.. that you Pay to protect you and yet they protect who Proskauer Rose Tells them to protect..

Yes my Opinion.. in which I have Because I Can Read. So Business is Good at Proskauer Rose .. and Intel Capital and McKinsey & Co Well you know that Proskauer Rose protected all .. to the best of their ability and well Of Course Proskauer Rose PROTECTS the ASS-ETS of Proskauer Rose...

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

"" Gov. David A. Paterson nominated Jonathan Lippman to head the New York Court of Appeals in January 2009, making him the chief judge of the state.

The choice was a gamble: The judge, a longtime court administrator, did not have a long history of deciding cases, and there was almost no record of his political views.

Judge Jonathan Lippman has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

Now, a year in, the parameters of the Lippman court are coming into focus. He has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

To get the rulings he wants, the decisions show, the new chief judge has built alliances case by case with each of the four judges who were nominated by the last Republican governor, George E. Pataki, cracking the conservative majority.

The changes to the culture of the court, New York’s highest — which has sometimes been one of the most influential state courts in the country — are especially striking when Chief Judge Lippman’s approach is compared with the judicial style of his predecessor, Judith S. Kaye. She had prized unanimity.

In the past year, the court has issued a series of sharply divided decisions that have been surprising from a judicial body with a clear 4-to-3 conservative majority. They have included decisions favoring criminal defendants and injured workers, expanding environmental challenges and extolling individual rights against the police.

“The message he is sending is he doesn’t mind fighting for a much more progressive direction at the court,” Vincent M. Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who studies the court, said of Judge Lippman.

Though fiscal and political problems have plagued Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, Judge Lippman’s nomination may be one of his most enduring accomplishments in shaping policy. Judge Lippman, 64, does not reach mandatory retirement age until 2015.

Noting that the Supreme Court had yet to rule on questions presented by Global Positioning Systems, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that the State Constitution barred the police from placing GPS tracking devices on cars without a warrant.

A different Republican judge joined the three Democratic appointees in another divided ruling, this one striking down a youth curfew in Rochester as unconstitutional, though other courts around the country have approved such laws.

The Lippman court has also shifted ground on worker injury suits, saying that in the past the court too rigidly limited some of them. It has also signaled a new interest in arguments from criminal defendants, sharply increasing, at Judge Lippman’s urging, the number of appeals it is considering.
In an interview, Judge Lippman acknowledged that he had a different approach from that of Judge Kaye, a longtime collaborator in running the courts.

She was also nominated by a Democrat, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, but during her nearly 16 years as chief judge, she often worked for unified rulings.

“I am a result-oriented person,” Judge Lippman said, “and the result I am looking for is not necessarily unanimity.”

According to the court, unanimous rulings declined from about 82 percent during 2008, Judge Kaye’s final year, to 69 percent in Judge Lippman’s first year.

During Judge Kaye’s tenure, the court became more conservative partly because of the arrival of the four Pataki judges. Professor Bonventre, the Albany Law School expert, said that divided decisions became more common in Judge Kaye’s final years but that dissents increased further after Judge Lippman arrived.

The rulings indicate that on occasion, Judge Lippman has tailored his arguments to attract one of the four Pataki judges.

In a decision he wrote in September, the court waded into politics by overruling two lower courts that had said Mr. Paterson’s appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was unlawful.

That view, Judge Lippman wrote, would “frustrate the work of the executive branch.”
It was an argument that seemed crafted to appeal to Judge Susan P. Read, a staunch conservative but a former top legal adviser to Governor Pataki, who was not shy about exerting executive authority. It was a party-line vote, except that Judge Read broke with the other Pataki appointees.

In the environmental case, Judge Lippman and the other two Democratic appointees aligned with two of the Republican-appointed judges, Victoria A. Graffeo, a onetime Republican legislative lawyer, and Robert S. Smith, who had sometimes expressed libertarian views.
The decision, written by Judge Smith, appeared to involve tradeoffs.

It tartly noted that the suit sought to kill a proposed hotel to protect obscure species, the Eastern spadefoot toad and the worm snake.

The hotel got a green light. But in the process, the case gave environmentalists one of their most important court victories in New York in nearly 20 years. The majority said a 1991 ruling of the court had been too narrowly applied to limit those who could bring such suits to immediate neighbors.

Stephen F. Downs, the lawyer for Save the Pine Bush, the Albany group that brought the suit, said someone on the bench seemed to be paying for an environmental victory with a defeat for the spadefoot toad. “My impression,” Mr. Downs said, “was there was a certain amount of horse trading that went on.”

That would be vintage Lippman, people who know him say. He was a get-things-done administrator, said a retired judge, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, who has known him throughout his 38-year legal career. ""

Source of Post
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18lippman.html

New York Court Corruption, Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest. Time for Accountability in the New York Courts. Time Whistleblowers were heard and time Proskauer Rose to be accountable for their actions. The Iviewit Stolen Patent Case has many players, however Proskauer Rose is the Patent Attorney that STOLE the Trillion Dollar Patent and Judge Judith Kaye and Her Connections to Proskauer Rose through her Husband.. Stephen Kaye made a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft such as the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent, seem like a Simple "Standard of Practice"...

Pay Attention Folks as more Unfolds on the Connections, Cronism and Conflicts of Interest of Proskauer Rose LLP - Ex-Judge Judith Kaye, Andrew Cuomo ( whose Father Appointed Judith Kaye) and how this all relates to court corruption in New York...

posted here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV

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

Proskauer Rose Billing Entries

Proskauer Rose Missing Paid Bills

Iviewit Holdings Missing Page

Iviewit General Corporate Advice

Iviewit General Corporate Advice P16

Iviewit General Corporate Advice - Missing Page

Numbers Done in Different Text Document

Missing Page Number in Different Font

General Corporate Advice P17

Missing Page

Proskauer Rose Lawyers WERE involved in the iViewit Scandal

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com 


Eye on Proskauer Rose

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

""« IVIEWIT TRILLION $$ FED SUIT DEFENDANT PROSKAUER ROSE SUED IN GLOBAL CLASS ACTION RE ALLEN STANFORD PONZI - SHIRA SCHEINDLIN WHISTLEBLOWER CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON TO TRIAL FOR PUBLIC OFFICE CORRUPTION CHARGES
Iviewit Motion to Compel US Second Circuit (Circus) Court to Follow Law. Allen Stanford, Bernard Madoff, Marc S. Dreier links to Iviewit via Proskauer Rose and Foley and Lardner implicated in Trillion Dollar Suit. Citizen Arrest of Judge Ralph Winter & Clerk Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe. »
Iviewit Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy Filing
to Remove Judge Martin Glenn
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
In re
GRAPHICS PROPERTIES
HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Debtors.
Chapter 11
Case No. 09-11701 (MG)
(Jointly Administered)
—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

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

TO THE HONORABLE MARTIN GLENN
SDNY BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn was further on direct notice that the Debtors SGI had simultaneously moved at the time of filing Ch. 11 on April 1, 2009 to simultaneously Employ as Special Counsel the law firm of Davis Polk Wardell (DPW) and Ropes and Gray, LLP by an application filed on such date by Ropes and Gray, LLP including a Declaration by William Kelly of DPW and that DPW was simultaneously representing the Lockheed Martin Corporation and SGI,
the Debtors herein, both of whom were Equity owners in Real3d Inc which was under signed NDA with my technologies and at the heart of my complaints and investigations herein.
Most shockingly, the Declaration of DPW attorney William Kelly places Mr. Kelly as an Inside Officer at SGI during ALL of the Relevant initial years of the Technologies theft with SGI and Real3d Inc. and later as Outside counsel for SGI while at DPW who simultaneously represents Lockheed Martin, the other Company with Intel at the heart of the Technology thefts with Real3dInc and violations of signed NDAs.
Thus, Clear Facial Conflicts appeared on the Records and Dockets of these proceedings certainly as of the date of my Emergency Motion filing on April 9, 2009 and thus SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn should be charged with knowledge of such conflicts as of at least April 9, 2009.
Additional specified conflicts made in writing prior to the Sept. 15, 2009 hearing which have been knowingly, deliberately and intentionally disregarded as part of the wall of conflicts machinery of RICO activity in legal proceedings include DPW further simultaneously representing Lockheed, SGI owners in Real3d Inc, while also simultaneously representing the Financial Accountants KPMG employed by SGI in this Ch. 11 bankruptcy while further representing other major companies under NDA with my technologies such as CIBC and Morgan Stanley creating conflict within conflict herein.
It is noted for Historical reference at this time that the Formal SEC complaint filed in March of 2009 expressly referenced failures to follow FASB No. 5 and similar Accounting Rules in this Trillion dollar fraud. As of the filing of my Emergency Motion on April 9, 2009, the Nation ( United States ) has heard almost daily reports of Financial Fraud and related investigations after the collapse of Wall Street, the $65 Billion plus Madoff fraud, and $8Billion Stanford fraud and more while Davis Polk Wardell simultaneously represents multiple players in the Wall Street debacle and most interestingly Recruited and Hired back to DPW former head of Enforcement at the SEC Linda Chatman Thomsen who left the SEC under fire for the failures that lead to the $65Billion Madoff fraud. Such facts involving the Madoff and SEC and Linda Chatman Thomsen matter were of such public knowledge that SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn should be presumed to have taken judicial notice herein. Published sources claim that Linda Thomsen was recruited back to DPW in April 2009 shortly after my filings herein.
Many threads tie together several of these financial schemes with the Iviewit technologies and companies, including Madoff, Dreier and Stanford, as pled in my federal RICO case, fully incorporated herein by reference, US 2nd Circ. Docket No. ( 08-4873-cv ) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. and USDC SDNY Docket No. ( 07cv11196 ) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS OF DUE PROCESS REQUIRE
INDEPENDENT AND NEUTRAL JUDGE

As noted by the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an appeal of a case coming out of Operation Greylord, a massive FBI investigation into Judicial corruption in Cook County of Illinois, the United States Supreme Court “has observed that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); see also McBride, 428 F.3d at 667 (”Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases …”).” See, Guest v McCann, http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/474/474.F3d.926.04-3736.html .
28 USC 455 provides in part as follows: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Disqualification is thus mandatory and shall be compelled where “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn is required under the federal Rules of Judicial Conduct as follows:
“CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ""
Source of Post and More information
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=76

Question: How Do you Deal with a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft and Billions upon Billions of Liability to Shareholders and States?
Answer: Ignore it and Hope it Just Goes Away.

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger



Eye on Proskauer Rose
Crystal@CrystalCox.com 

What Lit Proskauer Rose New York Up Today.. They Sure are Loving my Blogs..

my Guess is that POSSIBLY.. P. Stephen Lamont is Talking to Kenneth Rubenstein, because Today Interest on my Iviewit Writings from Proskauer Rose Web Servers like no other Day....

So Is Kenneth Rubenstein Connected to P. Stephen Lamont, Self Proclaimed FORMER CEO of Iviewit Technologies ??

Have any Information on this.. Email me Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

What Does the Iviewit Stolen Patent Have to Do With Enron?

It is Said that Enron's Broadband Division is what sunk the company. It is Said that The Broadband division was doing a deal with Blockbuster for delivery of a high quality video and had booked hundreds of millions in revenue based on these new technologies.

It is presumed these technologies were to be the stolen Iviewit Technologies. As Proskauer Rose Was involved with Iviewit's Stolen Patent, the SGI Bankruptcy and was representing Enron Somehow Right?

Enron was involved in a technology transfer and alliance agreement with Iviewit companies that may have been fraudulent companies with stolen patents.

Submitted by iviewit
2007-04-18 10:38:25

" It is amazing that an energy company was suddenly booking revenue as a broadband internet company. Blockbuster was started by Iviewit seed investor Wayne Huizenga. Arthur Andersen while conducting an audit for Crossbow Ventures, an Iviewit investor, funded by two thirds SBIC loans, was conducting an audit when they discovered two identically named corporations but one with missing minutes and stock records.

Andersen accused accountant for Iviewit, Erika Lewin, of misleading auditors regarding the Iviewit corporate structure and failing to state all the companies. Upon discovery of possible fraud and at the first signs that agreements such as the Enron/Iviewit deal were being done with these "other" identically named companies, Andersen suddenly went out of business with Enron and a shredding party like never before occured.

One must question why the Enron Broadband division escaped investigation and prosecution of its members when they were the cause of the collapse which had serious impact on shareholders and states like California.

All roads of the Bush Administration's corruptions lead to Patentgate. Check out www.iviewit.tv for more info. "

Source of Post
http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=5&id2=5255


More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at http://www.deniedpatent.com/
Posted by Industry Whistleblower Crystal L. Cox

Wachovia Bank and Proskauer Rose LLP go way Back Right?

Would Wachovia Bank Protect Proskauer Rose LLP in the Event of a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft Scandal?

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

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

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

"Dear Judge Scheindlin:

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

...
Source of Post and Full Document Click Below

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

ACORN's model whitewash - led by former Chief Judge Judith Kaye

Looks like things are starting to look up for those scoundrels, er, "community organizers," at ACORN.

At least, their friends are starting to run interference for them again.

A congressional research arm said Tuesday that the left-wing pressure group -- which Congress recently voted to cut off from federal funds after a sting operation caught employees dispensing housing-fraud advice to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute -- violated no federal regulations.


This follows a Brooklyn federal judge's ruling this month that Congress' action was itself unconstitutional -- and an "internal review" (read: whitewash) by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger that found "no evidence" of illegal action on ACORN's part.


Indeed, Scott Harshbarger of Proskauer Rose blamed the whole mess on lax standards introduced by the group's disgraced former leader, Wade Rathke, explaining that the scandal "erupted just as ACORN's reform leadership was about to complete an ambitious and professionally directed organizational and cultural transformation."
How convenient.

But recall that Rathke, ACORN's founder, resigned last year after it was revealed that he'd helped cover up embezzlement of group funds by his brother.

The likelier explanation: ACORN was a suspect endeavor from the start -- and still is.
Certainly, it's beyond absurd to claim that such a group has a constitutional right to pick taxpayers' pockets.

But we're more interested in what all this means for ACORN's bastard child in New York, the equally sketchy Working Families Party.

The WFP is being probed by the Staten Island DA and the Manhattan US attorney for allegedly circumventing campaign-finance law by undercharging candidates for its services.
And, sure enough, it's commissioned its own internal "review" -- this one led by former Chief Judge Judith Kaye.


No doubt, she's spending her holiday taking notes on Harshbarger's technique.


But, ironically enough, one section of Harshbarger's report may have direct bearing on the WFP.
To introduce some quality control into ACORN's operations, he suggests dissolving the dozens of semi-autonomous front groups that now do much of the organization's heavy lifting.

Any chance that might include the WFP itself -- which was founded by ACORN and Big Labor, and which still shares senior leadership with its parent group?

Alas, given the party's recent electoral successes, that seems unlikely.
But hey, we can hope.

'Tis the season for miracles, after all."


Source of Post
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/acorn_model_whitewash_mg5LzZXl2sp2asY5CFMqpK

proskauer
Is this the Same Scott Harshbarger that is Senior Counsel at Proskauer Rose? Doesn't Judith Kay and Proskauer Connections, Favors, Affiliations and Look the Other Ways .. Go Way Back...

These folks are all in bed together and Circling the Wagons, the Truth is Irrelevant, Corruption and Connection is all that Matters and YOU Lose.

Scott Harshbarger of Proskauer Rose: Either You Stand with the Victim or you Stand with the Criminal. Judith Kaye as a Supreme Court Judge protected Proskauer Rose in a Trillion Dollar Paten Heist Case Right? And he husband Was a Partner there right? Well there is no justice, no Truth - there is only Opinion and Favors Owed.
Harshbarger Scott

Christopher C Wheeler - Proskauer Rose Partner

Bio from Proskaur.com Website on Christopher C Wheeler

"Chris Wheeler, a Partner in the Corporate Department in the Boca Raton, Florida office, has a versatile transactional practice. He has extensive experience in real estate and corporate law, institutional lending, administrative law and industrial revenue bond financing. Moreover, he serves as a strategist and counselor to many clients in handling their other legal and business matters.

He has a large commercial real estate practice, having represented numerous companies in connection with the purchase or sale of their corporate headquarters, manufacturing facilities or distribution facilities.

Chris has overseen these matters for private and public corporations. He is particularly adept in handling the environmental aspects now so important to real estate transactions. He also has acted as counsel for developers, institutions and large property holders in connection with the purchase, sale, refinancing or operation of their real estate properties.

Chris's corporate experience is considerable, having advised small and large clients in a broad spectrum of businesses.

He is well versed in general corporate law as well as mergers and acquisitions and securities matters. He has guided companies from start-up through initial private placements to public offerings.

During the 1980s, when industrial revenue bonds were a preferred financing tool for small and mid-sized companies, Chris was one of the leading lawyers in securing and negotiating industrial revenue bond financing.

Chris also has represented a great many financial institutions and institutional lenders in Florida, developing a broad scope of experience. For these clients, Chris has handled regulatory matters and numerous types of loan transactions.

Active in professional, charitable and philanthropic matters, and community affairs, Chris presently serves on the Board of Trustees of the Boca Raton Community Hospital and the Board of Trustees of the Boca Raton Community Hospital Foundation.

He is a former member of the Board of Directors of Pine Crest School, a former member of the Board of Directors of Ronald McDonald House Charities of South Florida, and a former member of the Board of Directors of the Foundation of Florida Atlantic University. Chris also is a former member of the Grievance Committee for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. "

Source of Post
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/christopher-wheeler/
R
Though I think the Iviewit Scandal Needs to Be added to Christopher Wheeler's Biography. Does Proskauer Rose care at all what has happened with the Trillion Dollar Stolent Patent, or is it Just busines as Usually and are the Boys at the Top of this HUGE Mega-Law Firm getting some of that Trillions and that is Certainly incentive enough to look the other way...

Rose
Rose

REBUTTAL OF IVIEWIT TO THE New York State BAR

"REBUTTAL OF IVIEWIT TO THE NEW YORK STATE BAR OF
RESPONSE OF KENNETH RUBENSTEIN AUTHORED BY STEVEN KRANE"


P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
July 2, 2003

Re: Rebuttal of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Response
to Complaint of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., Docket 2003.0531

Dear Mr. Cahill:
By way of introduction, I am Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Company”) with a background of which the Company
invites you to view at http://www.iviewit.com/management.htm , and I write to rebutt all
those material feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of Kenneth
Rubenstein, Esq. (“Respondent”) to the Company’s New York Bar Complaint of
February 26 (“Complaint”).

Moreover, the facts of the Complaint find Respondent so uncloaked that he resorts to
disingenuously traversing from tall tales of retaliation to some irrelevant litigation, to
stories of a “failed dotcom company looking for someone to blame,” and even to the
personal attacks on the founder and principal inventor of the Company, whose passion for
his inventions confounds the mind of Respondent whose personal, financial, and other
ambitions rise above all, to the detriment of his clients.

Furthermore, Respondent continues this transparent discourse and all the while maintaining “The only thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer,”1 which the Company shall incite in the minds of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee that such a statement by Respondent could not be farther from the truth, as evidenced by Section I to Section XII, infra.

Prior to Section I to Section XII, infra, however, the first feint we need to address, and as
Respondent has chosen to apprise you, is that the Company and Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), are parties to that certain litigation titled Proskauer
Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001)
(“Litigation”) that, as Respondent is aware, yet prefaces and attributes the Complaint to
said Litigation, bears not one iota of relevance to the specific allegations contained in the
Company’s Complaint.

Second, another important feint to correct, and wherein Respondent hopes that First
Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee fails to see the forest from the trees, is that the Company is not now nor has ever been a so called “dotcom” company, but rather is a designer and developer of video scaling and imaging technologies where, in combination and among other things, said technologies have the capability of “panning and zooming” on any image or any image within a video without degradation to the quality of that image (where degradation is termed “pixelation” to those skilled in the art).

Additionally, the Company technologies are targeted to device original equipment
manufacturers (“OEMs”) who, when individually, or in combination with other third
party hardware, firmware, and/or software, shall include them in OEM products such as,
but not limited to, cable set top boxes, satellite set top boxes, analog-to-digital converter
boxes, next generation DVD players, digital cameras, personal video recorders, and
personal computers; alternatively the Company has the option of exclusively contributing
said essential technologies to the multimedia patent pools known as MPEG 2 (digital
compression according the digital television standard), MPEG 4 (another compression
standard at a lower bit rate, and wherein interactive objects may be embedded), and DVD
(“digital video disc”) player-drive-codec and the discs themselves.

Third, and most disingenuously, Respondent attempts to point to the two and one half
percent (2.5%) interest in, an interest that Proskauer paid a nominal, par value price for,
and that was supposedly in return for adoption by the MPEG 2 patent pool of the
Company’s essential inventions, the Company’s direct, 92.03% owned, subsidiary,
Iviewit Technologies, Inc., that more specifically translates into a one and ninety nine one
hundredths of a percent (1.99%) fully diluted interest in lower valued Class B Non-
Voting shares of the Company’s direct subsidiary, as a motivation for Proskauer Rose to see
the Company succeed, yet fails to apprise First Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee that in Respondent’s stewardship of the MPEG 2 patent pool,
which presently generates royalties in the nine figures, according to industry observers,
and that once digital television and the content there with assumes a penetration rate in
U.S. households akin to analog color television that said royalties from MPEG 2 shall rise
into the trillions of dollars, and much to the benefit of Respondent in his role as counsel,
by his admission2, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator, and
Proskauer Rose, thereby dwarfing any potential realized gain from the nominally priced equity position in the Company’s direct subsidiary.

Clearly, by this analysis, the Company suggests that Respondent and his author, Steven C. Krane (“Author”), continue to apply their skills sets towards, physics and technology licensing, and legal ethics and dispute resolution, respectively, as their prospects of future careers as financial analysts have diminished as a result of this poorly attempted feint in the response of Respondent.

Fourth, and an equally poorly analyzed feint, is Respondent’s reference to a letter
presented in his deposition to that certain Litigation on November 20, 2002, wherein such
Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes,
seemingly attempting to engage Respondent’s services future services, but by viewing an
electronic copy and right clicking the mouse of a IBM compatible personal computer and
selecting “properties” it is clear to Respondent that said letter’s date of creation was April
25, 2002, which was designed as a means for which to allow Respondent to “save his
soul” by reaffirming prior statements to potential licensees, and inapposite to
Respondent’s assumed intention (see Section IX Subsection A and Exhibit O – Statement
of CEO Lamont).

Lastly, Mr. Thomas Cahill, and as Respondent would have you believe, this is NOT the
Complaint of Eliot I. Bernstein, but of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation)
funded in total of approximately Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) by prominent investors and entertainment professionals alike, including, but not limited to: Wayne Huizenga, Wayne Huizenga Jr., Alan Epstein, Esq. and Michele Mulrooney, Esq. of Armstrong
Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer of Los Angeles. Cal., Kenneth Anderson, CPA,
Donald Kane (formerly Managing Director of Goldman Sachs), James Osterling, James
Armstrong, Ellen DeGenres, Alan Young, Allan Shapiro (Atlas Entertainment), Mitchell
Welsch (Vice President of UBS Paine Webber), and Jeffrey Friedstein (Vice President of
Goldman Sachs), Caroline P. Rogers, Esq. and many others.

Furthermore, the allegations in the Complaint stem from legal reviews by Irell and
Manella of Beverly Hills, Cal, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP of Los Angeles,
Cal., Caroline P. Rogers, Esq., the Chicago office of Greenberg Traurig LLP, Steven M.
Selz, Esq., and by executives of Warner Bros., a unit of AOL Time Warner, Inc., who in
the course of discussion both at the business level and personal level have advised that
looks can be deceiving when viewing the Company’s patent applications filed by patent
counsel under the supervision of Respondent, as the filings they viewed differ materially,
and, perhaps, fraudulently, the Company alleges, from the teachings and disclosures of
the Company’s inventors, Mr. Bernstein, Zakirul Shirajee, and Jude Rosario, and to the
detriment of the Company’s filings.

Now, with the above clarified, the Company points straight to the heart of the matters,
and despite Respondent’s statements in his deposition, wherein such Litigation is wholly
irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, and laughable
statements at that, the Company alleges, that include but are not limited to, “The only
thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer” and “I consider the deposition nothing but harassment, considering that I had nothing to do with the
company3,” and his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to the
Company’s technologies, we summarily state that from the benefit of the narrative and
attached exhibits below, the Company shall incite in the minds of First Judicial
Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee that Respondent:

(I) engaged in a series of dishonesties, appearances of untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation with, and as the supervising attorney of, one
Raymond A. Joao who at the time of Respondent’s referral was in transition from places
unknown, but later figuratively drops out of the sky, while misrepresented as a member
of Proskauer Rose, and as of February 1999, becomes of counsel to Meltzer, Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel LLP (“MLGS”), Respondent’s former employer, in an attempt to bury the
Company’s inventions that are a competitive threat to the multimedia patent pools of
which Respondent holds the position of counsel, by self admission, and, to the best of the
Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator;

(II) engaged in a series of improprieties and deceptions with a one Christopher C. Wheeler, a Partner in the Boca Raton office of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”) in a further attempt to deprive the Company of its technologies for the benefit of Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer by directing Mr. Christopher Wheeler to proliferate the Company’s technologies across a wide array of clients of Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer, according to Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”) never enforced by Mr. Wheeler, and a true list of clients conducting said unauthorized use is attached herein as Exhibit D;

(III) by virtue of his actions in (I) thereby perpetrating a fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in the supervision of Mr. Joao; and (IV) by virtue of (I) through (III) all to the detriment of the patent filings and present fortunes of the Company and its stakeholders alike.

Accordingly, on behalf of the Company, and for ease of reference I insert the major
allegations of the Complaint within the framework of The Lawyer’s Code of Professional
Responsibility of the New York State Bar Association,8 cross referencing Title 22 of New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations9 (“NYCRR”), and shall cite specific documentation
in exhibits attached hereto:

I. DR 1-102 [§1200.3] Misconduct.

The Company rebuts the feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of
Respondent and re-alleges that Respondent had, during the period of representation of the
Company from 1998 to mid 2001, and irrespective of at which date, and in which form,
an engagement agreement was executed by and between Proskauer Rose and the Company: (I)
engaged in illegal conduct that adversely reflected on Respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as an attorney; (II) circumvented a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another, Mr. Joao; (III) engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and (IV) engaged in other conduct that adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer.

Additionally, the Company, interalia, shall establish: (I) that Respondent, as the first
technologist to benefit from the inventions disclosures by the Company, was seen by the
inventors, executive management, investors, and potential licensees, as the individual
responsible for the oversight of the Company’s patent prosecution process;

(II) that Respondent used the referral of Mr. Raymond Joao as the cloaking device to bury the Company’s inventions that are competitive threats to the multimedia patent pools, thereby
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the
multimedia patent pools where Respondent, by admission, holds the position as counsel,
and also, to the Company’s best knowledge, patent evaluator;

(III) that Respondent opined as to the novelty of the Company’s inventions to investors and potential licensees at the same time he was directing Mr. Raymond Joao to bury the Company’s inventions in provisional patent filings that are a competitive threat to his patent pools and directing Mr. Christopher Wheeler to proliferate the Company’s technologies among clients of Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer without the enforcement of NDAs; and (IV) that Respondent engaged in other conduct that adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer by his unconscionable speaking of falsehoods in a recent deposition in the Litigation, wherein such litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, in which he denies, interalia:

(a) knowledge of the Company, however, has been named as overseer of the Company’s patent prosecution process and has been named as a member of the Company’s Advisory Board and has opined as to the novelty of the Company’s inventions to investors and potential licensees alike;

(b) denies knowledge of the Company’s main inventor, Mr. Bernstein, and other inventors, although he has spent many hours in disclosure sessions with the Company’s inventors; and

(c) has refused to describe his involvement with the organization MPEG LA, LCC that through
doctrines of respondeat superior and vicarious liability may be liable for the actions of
Respondent in other forums separate and apart from the Complaint, and where said
speaking of falsehoods in (a) through (c) has been steadfastly repeated in Respondent’s
response to the Complaint.

A. More specifically, Respondent, when first apprised of the Company’s technologies
states, through Mr. Wheeler, the opinion that they are “novel” and a statement relied
upon by early investors in the Company.

Moreover, through and in conjunction with Mr. Wheeler, Respondent becomes fully aware of the Company’s inventions whereby he receives invention processes, visits the proprietary pages of the Company’s web site, receives proprietary and confidential CD-ROM’s, is, factually, in constant phone contact with the Company’s inventors to learn the Company’s techniques, often times with Mr. Joao, and transmits examples of patents to Mr. Bernstein that point to the patent prosecution process he intends to oversee and undertake in conjunction with Mr. Joao, attached herein as Exhibit E.

Moreover, once knowledgeable about the Company’s inventions and in disclosure
teleconferences with Mr. Bernstein, the Company finds Respondent muttering to himself
“I missed that” and “we never thought of that” and “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.”

Furthermore, when Respondent’s muttering of “I missed that” and
“we never thought of that,” the Company alleges that Respondent is incensed at the
thought of a self taught video engineer, the likes of Mr. Bernstein and his fellow
inventors, formulating video and imaging processes that trump the preeminent patent
pools formed by Respondent, the patents of which were evaluated by Respondent, the
organization of which is counseled by Respondent, and the licensee and licensor list of
which Respondent counts as some of his clients as described at the URL at
http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/4747 , where his client list includes some of those companies listed in the MPEG 2 patent pool, and highlighted as attached herein as Exhibit F.

Furthermore, Respondent is seen pointed to by former company executive management,
and named in multiple Company business plans authored by and reviewed and billed for
by Mr. Wheeler and delivered to Respondent’s for his review, and by potential license
partners as the “go to” individual regarding information and opinions on the Company’s
inventions examples of which are attached herein as Exhibit G.

B. More importantly, the Company points to his alleged mutterings that “THIS
CHANGES EVERYTHING,” wherein “EVERYTHING” allegedly refers to
Respondent’s formation, patent evaluation, and counseling to the organization MPEG
LA, LLC that coordinates the MPEG 2 and MPEG 4 patent pools of which the
Company’s inventions are a competitive threat.

Factually, the Company has knowledge that, as well as Respondent holding the position
of counsel by his own admission, Respondent holds the position of patent evaluator, and
wherein Respondent:

(a) may personally profit as said patent evaluator by, to the best of
the Company’s knowledge, receiving a fee of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($8,500) per patent review10; (b) wherein Mr. Rubenstein counts as among his clients
certain licensors and licensees of said patent pools, and receives remuneration as the
billing Partner in representation of those clients by Respondent and Proskauer Rose; and (c)
wherein it is in the best personal, financial interest of Respondent to direct and engage
with Mr. Joao and Mr. Wheeler in said series of dishonesties, appearances of
untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation to
remove the competitive threat of the Company’s inventions to said multimedia patent
pools, thereby securing his own personal gain and, perhaps, that of Proskauer.

Lastly, given this time line of events concerning Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, it becomes strikingly unusual that Respondent and other former members and
associates of MLGS who at the time just transferred with Respondent to Proskauer, pass
on the patent prosecution work of the Company for their new employer, Proskauer Rose, and
10 First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should be apprised of the fact that: (i) said patent pool known as MPEG 2 contains, as of even date above, approximately Five Hundred and Eighty (580) essential patents, and contains some eighty to ninety percent (80% to 90%), according to industry observers, of the essential patents relevant to this pool; (ii) that said patent pool known as DVD contains, as of even date above, approximately Six Hundred and Seventy Five (675) essential patents, and the Company has no knowledge as to what percentage of the essential patents are contained relevant to this pool; and (iii) that said patent pool known as MPEG 4 presently contains approximately One Hundred (100) essential patents, and by the Company’s estimation contains approximately twenty five percent (25%) of the essential patents relevant to this pool; (iv) that by virtue of (i) and (ii) herein,

Respondent may have personally profited, absent any sharing with his former or present employers or in the operating budget of MPEG LA, LLC, in the amount of approximately Five Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,700,000); and (v) that by virtue of (iii) herein, Respondent may stand, from this activity alone, to personally profit in the future, absent any sharing with his present employer or the operating budget of MPEG LA, LLC, of approximately Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), as well as profiting, the Company alleges, in other ways from the burying of the Company’s technologies, or resurrecting them with a cumulative present value of up to Seventeen Billion Dollars ($17,000,000,000) over twenty (20) year patent life.

Refer it back to their former law firm, MLGS, and an attorney, in one Mr. Joao, who
seemingly drops out of the sky and has no connection to the former attorneys, or do
Respondent and Mr. Raymond A. Joao have a former connection?

Moreover, and at this point in the time line, Respondent has already opined that the Company’s inventions are “novel” and essential to MPEG, as well as, in the Company’s opinion, a competitive threat to MPEG, which lends great support to the Company’s contenti ons that Respondent saw the personal financial gains, esteem, and current and prospective clients from the multimedia patent pools as needs to bury the Company’s inventions.

Finally, it is proximate to this series of events and circumstances that the Company realleges
that Respondent, desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal, financial gains,
esteem, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist,
the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, engaged, with and while
acting as the overseer of Mr. Joao, in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and
misrepresentation, wherein Respondent who has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions by missing critical elements
in the provisional patent applications, as attached herein as Exhibit H; Mr. Bernstein, the
other inventors, former President & COO Brian G. Utley , and representatives of the
“seed” investor, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc. find:

(I) flaws in patent applications; (II) material differences between what was disclosed and contained in filed patent applications, as further described in Exhibit H by the letter of Mr. Utley; and (III) patent applications that do not include all the inventors.

C. Still further, the opinions of Respondent are instrumental in the “seed” funding of the
Company by an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc. (Wayne Huizenga of Blockbuster
fame) wherein Respondent interfaces with the Huizenga investment professionals, and
Mr. Wheeler reiterates Respondent’s opinions regarding the Company’s inventions.
Similarly, Mr. Wheeler relays Respondent’s opinions to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
Gruntal & Co. (presently a unit of Raymond James Financial Inc.), and a whole host of
other investors and potential license partners now conducting the unauthorized use of the
Company technologies under NDAs not enforced by Respondent and Mr. Wheeler.

Lastly, to investors in the Company, it was the representation of Respondent and Mr.
Wheeler that Respondent’s patent pools and other interested clients of Respondent and
Mr. Wheeler would license the Company’s technologies; it was also represented that
Respondent made positive decisions on the essentiality of the Company’s patents pending
to potential licensees of the Company, in particular with respect to Warner Bros., and his
close association with a one Gregory B. Thagard, an individual who is the named, or one
of the named inventor(s) for approximately thirteen patents in the DVD patent pool and
was associated with Respondent in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media
Lab; instances of investor and licensee representations are more particularly described by
Exhibit I.

D. Lastly, through his many denials and, factual outright disavowing numerous items in
his deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevant
to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes,

Respondent outright disavows:

1. any knowledge whatsoever of the Company;

2. any knowledge whatsoever of Mr. Bernstein and the other true inventors;

3. any knowledge whatsoever of techniques known as pan and zoom technology;

4. and through his refusal to answer questions regarding the allegedly vicariously
liable MPEG LA, LLC16 amongst others;

5. his charge that the deposition was harassment in that he had nothing to do with
the Company;

6. his steadfast denial of technology known as scaled video;

7. his claim as to never opining on the Company’s technology;

8. his denial of ever having been involved in meetings concerning the Company

9. his denial of ever having any discussion with anyone at Proskauer concerning the
Company’s technology;

10. his admission of not keeping notes or records of his conversations to Mr.
Wheeler.

11. his acknowledgement of never having billed the Company, though his name
appears more than a dozen times, absent those billings that may have purposely
removed, in billings from Mr. Wheeler’s office.

12. his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to the
Company’s technologies;. his stunning reversal of his possible conversation with third parties regarding the Company’s technologies;25 and,his lack of knowledge as to why his name appears in an electronic mail message to a member of AOL Time Warner’s investment team, wherein that message states that Respondent opined on the Company’s technologies.

Accordingly, by subparagraphs 1 to 14 above, Respondent has engaged in other conduct
that adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer, in light of said denials of
which the Company shall conclusively prove otherwise, infra.

II. DR 1-103 [§1200.4]
Disclosure of Information to Authorities.

A. The Company realleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-alleges
that Respondent who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains,
esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from
representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the
multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the
burying the Company’s inventions, possessed knowledge of a violation of DR 1-102
[§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of Mr. Joao, Mr. Joao’s
trustworthiness, Mr. Joao’s fitness as a lawyer, whom Respondent has recruited to assist,
the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention, whereby Respondent
failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate
or act upon such violation.

Still further, and by Exhibit I, the Company alleges Respondent’s awareness of violations
of Mr. Joao during a meeting at Respondent’s New York office with a one Steven
Filipeck, Esq. representing Huizenga Holdings, as well as others, pertaining to the
Company’s patent filings, and based on Mr. Filipeck’s review of Mr. Joao’s, under the
direction of Respondent, provisional work; Huizenga Holdings, Inc. was the initial
investor in the Company and this meeting materially impacts future Huizenga
investments which, as a result of the faulty provisional patent applications, were never
forthcoming.

Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violation of
DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of a one William
J. Dick, Esq. of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, Wis. and Mr. Utley, whereby Respondent
similarly failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to
investigate or act upon such violation.

Still further, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violation
of DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of Mr. Wheeler,
whereby Respondent similarly failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other
authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

Lastly, the Company further alleges that Respondent may have had knowledge of factors
that may raise a substantial question as to the honesty of a one H. Hickman Powell III and
Stephen J. Warner, Managing Director and Co-Founder and Chairman, respectively, of
one Crossbow Ventures, Inc. of West Palm Beach, Fla., an affiliate of which was the
Company’s lead investor, whereby Respondent similarly failed to report such knowledge
to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
Moreover, with respect to Messrs.

Powell and Warner and Crossbow, in late 1999, they were introduced to the Company by Mr. Wheeler, who had indicated to the Company that they were interested in an equity investment in the Company once they had conducted a thorough due diligence review of the Company’s intellectual property and provisional patent filings with a independent third party patent counsel, and in conjunction with Respondent and Mr. Joao.

Clearly, as Crossbow proceeded to invest a total of Four Million Dollars consisting of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000) in convertible preferred stock (January 2000), One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) in unsecured notes (December 2000), and Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) in secured notes27 (May to September 2001) in the Company, said independent intellectual property review passed with flying colors, but what strikes the Company as unusual is that the independent intellectual property review by Crossbow in conjunction with Respondent and Mr. Joao, is in diametric opposition to the review of Foley & Lardner, and in diametric opposition to the review of the Company’s present patent prosecution counsel of Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP of Los Angeles,
Cal., and lastly, is in diametric opposition to the review of the Company’s latest patent
review counsel, the Chicago office of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Finally, following the time line of events, the termination of Mr. Utley for cause follows
with a breach of contract action (since dismissed) by, among others, Mr. Utley, followed
by Mr. Utley’s petition in an involuntary bankruptcy (since dismissed) against the
Company, followed by the Litigation (pending) by and between the Company and
Proskauer, wherein such litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive
for these purposes, followed by the execution of Crossbow’s secured notes collateralized
by the Company’s intellectual property, followed by the halting of funding by Crossbow
Ventures that was far lower than the committed amount for that round, followed by a
demand letter for accrued but unpaid interest by Crossbow Ventures to the Company,
followed by a default notice and demand for all principal and accrued but unpaid interest
under the secured notes by Crossbow Ventures to the Company, and followed by a notice
of assignment of the intellectual property of the Company by Crossbow Ventures
(presently the subject of dispute), followed by a transfer of the secured notes contrary to
the rules of the Securities Act of 1933, to the best of the Company’s knowledge
(presently, the subject of a complaint to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission), followed by Crossbow’s false statements to The Palm Beach Post that
“[Crossbow]sold one of its companies, iviewit.com,28” and the Company finds itself
asking:

Are not all these individuals and entities the referrals of Proskauer, Mr. Wheeler,
and Respondent, and introduced after Respondent has been apprised of the
Company inventions, and declaring them as ‘novel,’ and that ‘[Respondent]
missed that,’ and that ‘[Respondent] never thought of that,’ and, lastly
Respondent’s statement that ‘this changes everything,’ and whereby the efforts of
a preeminent multimedia patent counsel, such as Respondent or another, who is
desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients
from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, may be of utilization
later after the above said series of events rendered the Company, its inventors, the
predominance of its shareholders, absent Mr. Utley and Crossbow and Proskauer,
neutralized, in the resurrection of the Company’s inventions for the benefit of
Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, Proskauer, Mr. Powell, Mr. Warner, Crossbow, and
Mr. Utley?

(Check Out Page 44 the Link Below for this Picture of Connections)

B. Similarly, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the multimedia patent
pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the
Company’s inventions possessed knowledge or evidence, not protected as a confidence or
secret, concerning Mr. Joao, without revealing such knowledge or evidence to the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other authorities empowered to
investigate or act upon the irresponsible conduct of Mr. Joao.

C. Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violation
of DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of ones Steven
Becker and Douglas Boehm of Foley & Lardner and, whereby Respondent similarly
failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate
or act upon such violation.

III. DR 1-104 [§1200.5]
Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer and
Subordinate Lawyers.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, and Section II Subsection A-C, inclusive. More
specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the multimedia patent
pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the
Company’s inventions, is responsible for a violation of the Disciplinary Rules by Mr.
Joao whereby:

(I) Respondent ordered and directed the irresponsible misconduct of Mr. Joao in burying the Company’s technologies, and, with full knowledge of Mr. Joao’s specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct; (II) Respondent ordered and directed, in conjunction with Mr. Wheeler, the irresponsible misconduct of subsequent patent counsel Mr. Dick, a one Steven Becker, a one Douglas Boehm all of Foley & Lardner, and Mr. Utley in continuing to bury the Company’s technologies, and, with full knowledge of their specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct; and (III) Respondent had supervisory authority over these individuals and knew of such misconduct that Respondent, ordered, directed, and ratified, and in the exercise of reasonable management and supervisory authority where Respondent knowing of said misconduct failed to take remedial action at a time when the consequences of their misconduct could be or could have been avoided
or mitigated.

B. Lastly, and aside from the fact that Respondent ordered and directed the irresponsible
misconduct of Mr. Joao in burying the Company’s technologies, and, with full
knowledge of Mr. Joao’s specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct, Respondent was
negligible in the referral to Mr. Joao in that Mr. Joao presently has numerous patents
issued and patent applications pending since meeting the inventors, nearly eighty (80) in
total, and where these inventions concern those allegedly learned through his engagement
with the Company, the royalties, if measured along the lines of the MPEG 2 patent pool,
can represent upwards of, if not more than, Twelve Million Dollars ($12,000,000) per
annum; similarly,

Respondent was negligent in Proskauer’s referral of Foley & Lardner,
whereby the lead counsel to the Company, Mr. William J. Dick,was previously involved in alleged intellectual property malfeasances with Mr. Utley, and considering the particular patent applications wrongly written into Mr. Utley as the sole inventor, and sent to Mr. Utley’s home, and without Mr. Utley assigning said inventions to the Company, and where Foley & Lardner had full knowledge of Mr. Utley’s inability to invent said technologies, the
royalties flowing from these nearly misappropriated inventions might approach more than
One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000) annually.

IV. DR 1-107 [1200.5-c]
Contractual Relationships Between Lawyers and
Nonlegal Professionals
A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, and Section III Subsection
A, inclusive.

Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent’s practice of
law during his representation of the Company lacked the essential tradition of complete
independence and uncompromised loyalty to the Company as a result of Respondent’s
representation as counsel and, to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator,
to the entity known as MPEG LA, LLC, or the licensor of those essential patents known
as MPEG 2 and MPEG 4, the DVD patent pool administered by DVD 6C Licensing
Agency, that the Company’s technologies provide for a competitive threat, as evidenced
by Exhibit J attached herein, and other clients, wherein Respondent refuses to answer
questions in his deposition with regard to the Litigation30, wherein such Litigation is
wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, concerning
questions pertaining to MPEG LA, LLC, as, the Company alleges, Respondent is fully
aware that the misconduct of Mr. Joao as overseen by Respondent, would rise to the level
of MPEG LA, LLC through doctrines of respondeat superior and vicarious liability,
thereby impinging upon Respondent’s personal financial gains whereby Respondent,
who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable
gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be
trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and
has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions ..

B. Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent’s representation of the Company
lacked the tradition of complete independence and uncompromised loyalty as outlined in
this Section, Subsection A, as a result of Respondent’s simultaneous representation of
MPEG LA, LLC as well as other clients possessing overlapping interests with respect to
the Company, the Company lacked the guarantee of independent professional judgment
and undivided loyalty uncompromised by conflicts of interest in its representation by
Respondent when viewing the Company’s technologies as competitive threats to those
technologies licensed by MPEG LA, LLC and Respondent’s personal financial gains as
its counsel, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator.

Lastly, as a result of this Section Subsections A and B, the Company re-alleges that
Respondent failed: (I) in his responsibility to maintain his or own independent
professional judgment; (II) to maintain the confidences and secrets of the Company; and
(III) to otherwise comply with the legal and ethical principles governing lawyers in New
York State.

V. DR 4-101 [§1200.19]
Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
and Section IV Subsection A-C, inclusive.

Wherein, “confidence” refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and “secret” refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the Company had requested be held inviolate and the disclosure of which would likely be detrimental to the Company, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent (I) used the confidences and trade secrets of the Company to the disadvantage of the Company; (II) revealed, by using for Respondent’s own gain, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and
clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, confidences and trade secrets
of the Company, to the disadvantage of the Company; and (III) Respondent failed to
exercise reasonable care to prevent his clients from disclosing and using the confidences
and trade secrets of the Company.

More specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent revealed confidences and
trade secrets of the Company to the disadvantage of the Company as evidenced by the
billings of Proskauer wherein Respondent is named numerous times and has participated
in numerous hours of billings by Proskauer, attached herein as Exhibit K.

Furthermore, in his response, Respondent points to the fact that he has not billed for one hour of work in representation of the Company, whereby by Exhibit K, the Company finds itself asking
“Does Respondent work for free?” and answers by replying “No, but only when
Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains,
esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from
representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the
multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the
burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently,
see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, as
a means to cloak his involvement in the burying of the Company’s inventions.”

Moreover, it should be similarly noted with respect to the billings of Proskauer that the
Company further alleges that Proskauer’s early bills bear eerie evidence of possible
tampering, and wherein Respondent’s name and patent discussion entries may have been
attempted to be removed in an effort to exculpate Respondent.

Furthermore, the Company re-alleges that Respondent revealed, by using for
Respondent’s own gain, confidences and trade secrets of the Company, to the
disadvantage of the Company according to the same analysis in this Section, Subsection A.

B. Lastly, the Company re-alleges that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care to
prevent his clients from disclosing and using the confidences and trade secrets of the
Company as evidenced by the URL at http://trailers.warnerbros.com/web/category.jsp?id=action, whereby on the website of Warner Bros, a client of Respondent as evidenced by Mr. Wheeler’s second response32 to the Company’s Complaint against Mr. Wheeler, a viewer who selects an action trailer and choosing Windows Media Player at a connection speed of 300k and when observing the trailer and right clicking the viewer’s personal computer mouse and choosing the option “statistics” and then choosing the option ”advanced,” the quality of video seen at the specified bit rate and connection speed that deliver twenty
(24) to thirty (30) full screen frames per second (termed “full frame rates” to those skilled
in the art) is mathematically impossible to deliver other than by use of the Company’s
inventions, as corroborated by the letter of David Colter, former Vice President of
Advanced Technology of Warner Bros., and all attached herein as Exhibit L.

VI. DR 5-101 [§1200.20]
Conflicts of Interest - Lawyer’s Own Interests

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, and Section V Subsection A-D, inclusive.

Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG
2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the

Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the
matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying
the Company itself, continued his employment by MPEG LA, LLC, and whereby said
employment materially affected Respondent’s judgment to the detriment of the Company
as a result of Respondent’s own financial, business, property, and personal interests, and
whereby the Company gave no consent to the representation in light of the implications
of the Respondent’s interest.

Furthermore, by this violation of DR 5-101, it becomes more apparent when viewed in
terms of that neither Respondent nor Mr. Wheeler33 are cognizant of whether Proskauer
conducted a no conflict of interest verification. Still further, the Company further alleges
that Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr. Joao were in receipt of proprietary and
confidential Company information without the benefit of a retainer agreement34 or no
conflict of interest verification, and whereby a no conflict of interest verification was
conducted approximately twelve months after the first technology disclosures by the
Company to Mr. Wheeler, Respondent, and Mr. Joao, as described in Exhibit F, supra.

VII. DR 5-105 [§1200.24]
Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
inclusive. Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.
Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, failed to decline the
continued proffered employment by MPEG LA, LLC and his other clients, and that as a
result of Respondent’s failure to decline said employment, Respondent’s exercise of
independent professional judgment on behalf of the Company was adversely affected by
Respondent’s continuation of said proffered employment by, including but not limited to,
MPEG LA, LLC, and that it was likely to involve Respondent in representing differing
interests.

B. Furthermore, the Company re-alleges that Respondent continued the said multiple
employment by both, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC and the Company
when Respondent’s exercise of independent professional judgment on behalf of the
Company was adversely affected by the Respondent’s representation of, including but not
limited to, MPEG LA, LLC, and that it resulted in Respondent representing differing
interests with material conflicts across his client roster, Proskauer’s clients under NDA,
the multimedia patent pools in general, and MPEG 2 in particular, that has a potential to
generate royalties in the trillions of dollars at the time in which digital television is the
quintessential entertainment client in end users viewing areas.

Moreover, Respondent, in his deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, states his inability to recall his financial package35 as well as his date of employment with Proskauer Rose, which, the Company alleges, reveals Respondent’s motives, when viewed in terms of his desire to maintain Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s
employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions and perhaps the
facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing
for burying the Company itself, and as evidenced by Exhibit M attached herein.

Additionally, also presented in Exhibit M are: (I) a compact disc recording of a taped
conversation by and between Mr. Eliot Bernstein and inventor Shirajee that points to the
absolute knowledge by Respondent, Mr. Joao, and Mr. Wheeler as to the Company’s true
inventors; (II) the statement of former Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors,
Simon Bernstein; and (III) the statements of other former employees, shareholders,
investors and clients all possessing knowledge of the alleged malfeasances and
misfeasances of Respondent, Mr. Joao, and Mr. Wheeler.

The Company re-alleges that Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, failed to maintain
records of Respondent’s outside interests with, including but not limited to, MPEG LA,
LLC, and similarly failed to implement a system by which the proposed engagement with
the Company was checked against Respondent’s employment by, including but not
limited to, MPEG LA, LLC, and whereby the case of representation of the Company was
a substantial factor in causing a violation of DR 5-105 by Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.
Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself.

VIII. DR 5-108 [§1200.27]
Conflict of Interest - Former Client.

The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
and Section VII Subsection A-C, inclusive.

Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent, after the representation of the Company continued to represent, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC in the same and substantially related matter in which Respondent’s and Proskauer’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the Company, as Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself

A. The Company re-alleges that Respondent used the confidences and trade secrets of
the Company to the detriment of the Company.

B. The Company re-alleges that without the consent of the Company, Respondent
knowingly continued to represent, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC in the
same and substantially related matters in which Respondent had previously represented
the Company and: (I) Respondent’s interests and the interests of Proskauer are materially
adverse to the Company; and (II) Respondent had acquired information protected by
section DR 4-101 [1200.19](B) that is material to the matter.

IX. DR 7-101 [§1200.32]
Representing a Client Zealously.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
Section VII Subsection A-C, and Section VIII Subsection A-C, inclusive. Furthermore,
Company re-alleges that Respondent intentionally failed to seek the lawful objectives of
the Company through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary
Rules.

More specifically, the representation by Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG
2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the
matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying
the Company itself, in his role as overseer of the Company’s patent prosecution process,
is aware that his direction of Mr. Joao has the stated goal of filing the provisional patent
application for the Company’s imaging invention by January 1999, and a goal not
fulfilled until more than three months later, and wherein all disclosures had occurred
while the Respondent and Mr. Wheeler, under the umbrella of Proskauer, had neither
executed a retainer agreement with the Company nor conducted conflict checks, but only
approximately twelve months after the Company’s technology disclosures, all conduct of
which reflects negatively on Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer.

Moreover, Respondent erroneously claims that foreigners could not be listed as inventors
in diametric opposition to Section 115 of the Patent Act38, a true copy of which is
attached herein as Exhibit N, which, according to the Company’s best understanding may
invalidate any patents at issuance; thereafter, Mr. Wheeler expedites, and bills for such,
the immigration status of Mr. Shirajee and Mr. Rosario so that they may be listed as
inventors; still at this point, Mr. Joao, under the direction of Respondent, fails to state
proper inventors.

Still further, the Company required Respondent’s participation, and wherein Respondent
willfully failed to participate, by teleconference during its first major technology
disclosure with Real 3D, Inc. (then a consortium of Intel Corp., Silicon Graphics, Inc.,
and Lockheed Martin Corp), during which time it was found that Mr. Joao, under the
direction of Respondent, protected only the imaging invention, and wherein the Company
cannot make full disclosures of the video invention and the combination of imaging and
scaled video where, Mr. Wheeler, after the meeting, calls Respondent who opines that no
damage may result from the late filings as the protection of the inventions rest on the date
of invention and not the filing dates; unfortunately, Respondent was remiss in failing to
state that the international patent system relies on a “first to file” basis, rather than his
stated invention date instructions, and thus potentially exposes the Company’s
international patent portfolio based on the late filings of imaging, video scaling, and the
combination of imaging and scaled video.

B. Still further, the Company references the removal of Mr. Raymond Joao as the Company patent prosecutor, under the direction of Respondent, and his replacement by Foley & Lardner,
specifically referred by Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Utley, and still under the direction of

Respondent. The Company further alleges that Respondent is negligent in the oversight
of Foley & Lardner’s work as they fail to: (a) correct the mistakes of Mr. Joao, pursue
non-provisional patent prosecution for the Company that results in flawed work of their
own, still under the direction of Respondent, and when corrected by the Company, still
file non-provisional patent applications filled with flaws; (b) file non-provisional patent
applications with missing and changed inventors; (c) write non-provisional patent
applications into the name of the Company’s President & Chief Operating Officer, a one
Brian G. Utley, with no assignment to the Company, and an individual who had a close
association with the Foley & Lardner lead, William J. Dick, with full knowledge that Brian Utley
could not and was not inventor of the subject matter of those non-provisional
applications; and (d) failed to disclose the former intellectual property malfeasances of
Mr. Utley and Mr. Dick at Mr. Utley’s former employer, Diamond Turf Lawnmower in
Florida.

B. Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent tortuously interfered with a
business contract by and between the Company and Warner Bros, wherein a one Wayne
M. Smith, Vice President and Senior Litigation and Patent Counsel called upon
Respondent to re-opine, as he had many times before, and Respondent refuses based
upon his stated conflicts of interest when such conflicts of interest were not stated during
the times of the Company’s technology disclosures to Respondent nor in Respondent’s
previous discussions with Warner Bros., and in light of his proffered employment by,
including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC.

Most specifically, the Company submits the statement of P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO Lamont”) that describes his December 2001 to April 2002 discussions and correspondences with Respondent attached herein as Exhibit O, prefaced by letters of David Colter, former Vice President for Advanced Technology of Warner Bros. that references Respondent’s validation of the Company’s inventions.

C. Lastly, the Company re-alleges the misfeasance of Respondent in light of his failure
to file a copyright with the Unites States Library of Congress pertaining to the protection
of the source code algorithmically enabling the Company’s inventions, the drafting of
which was billed for by Mr. Wheeler’s office of Proskauer, although said office, to the
best of the Company’s knowledge, employed no intellectual property attorneys.

X. DR 7-102 [§1200.33]
Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
Section VII Subsection A-C, Section VIII Subsection A-C, and Section IX Subsection AC,
inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent concealed and
knowingly: (I) failed to disclose that which Respondent was required by law to disclose;

(II) spoke falsehoods and presented false documents; (III) made false statement of law
and fact; (IV) participated, under the supervision of and with Mr. Joao, who was recruited
by Respondent to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention,
in the creation or preservation of documentation when Respondent knew that said
documentation is false; (V) under the supervision of and with Mr. Raymond Joao had perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal, the USPTO, without revealing the fraud to such tribunal; and (V) engaged in illegal conduct and conduct contrary to Disciplinary Rules.

B. More specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Brian Utley, Mr.
Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, knowingly failed to
disclose that which Respondent was required by law to disclose, in the allegedly burying
of the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr.
Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself.

Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent knowingly spoke falsehoods and
presented false documents, in investor and potential licensee discussions while
representing the Company as the ultimate responsible party in the Company’s patent
prosecution process, and especially in those certain discussions with the Company’s
“seed” investor, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc., as further described in Section II
Subsection A, and Warner Bros. as further described in Section IX Subsection C, as well
as other clients.

C. Furthermore, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent made false statement of
law and fact, and as to fact in his discussions with investors and potential license
partners, particularly, including but not limited to, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc.,
Warner Bros., Crossbow Ventures, and through others, SONY Corporation, and as
particularly described herein.

D. Additionally, the Company further alleges that Respondent participated, under the
supervision of and with Mr. Joao, who was recruited by Respondent to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention, in the creation or preservation
of documentation when Respondent knew that said documentation is false, as particularly
described in Exhibit B attached herein, the complaint, response, and the Company’s
rebuttal of Raymond A. Joao, Esq.

E. Lastly, the Company further alleges that Respondent according to the supervision of
and with Mr. Joao and attorneys of Foley & Lardner had perpetrated a fraud upon a
tribunal, the USPTO, via principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability,
without revealing the fraud to such tribunal. Finally, as evidenced by this Section,
subsection B-E, inclusive, the Company re-alleges that Respondent engaged in illegal
conduct and conduct contrary to Disciplinary Rules XI. DR 9-102 [§1200.46] Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of Others; Fiduciary Responsibility; Commingling and Misappropriation of Client Funds or Property; Maintenance of Bank Accounts; Record Keeping; Examination of Records.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
Section VII Subsection A-C, Section VIII Subsection A-C, and Section IX Subsection AC,
and Section X Subsection A-E, inclusive.

Furthermore, the Company alleges that Respondent failed to maintain required bookkeeping records for the seven (7) year period including, but not limited to copies of all bills that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Raymond Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, should have rendered to the Company.

Moreover, in representation of the Company, Respondent acknowledges39 that he neither kept no notes, electronic mail messages, nor other records in his deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, and said acknowledgement is attached herein as Exhibit P.

Moreover, and upon request by subsequent patent counsel, Foley & Lardner, a copy of
which is attached herein as Exhibit P, Respondent failed, under principles of respondeat
superior and vicarious liability, to require his charge, Mr. Joao to remit all documents
required under Exhibit P, and not least of all, documentation Mr. Joao, by admission,
destroyed, XII. Lastly, the negligent actions of Respondent resulted in and were the
proximate cause of loss to the Company.

A. The history of the Company, literally back to the first day of discovery of the
inventions, sees the allegations described in Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend to
Assert Counterclaim for Damages, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case
No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida filed May 2, 2001) attached herein as Exhibit Q, a motion of which stems
from that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is instructive
for the alleged violations I to XI above, wherein after review by the Company’s
subsequent patents counsels, the work product of Mr. Raymond Joao, under the supervision of Respondent, under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability, who is
desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Raymond A. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently,

see Mr. Utley, Mr. Christopher Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, result in the causing of damages to the Company over a twenty year patent life, as described in the Company’s projections across all distribution channels as evidenced by Exhibit R attached herein projected at a present value of approximately Ten Billion Dollars ($10,000,000,000) of potential damages, and much in the way Respondent, the Company alleges, envisioned.

The Company further alleges that, once Respondent and Mr. Joao saw the Company’s
inventions, Respondent sees the personal, financial need to bury these inventions, and
recruits Mr. Raymond Anthony Joao as the executioner of the Company’s inventions.

Moreover, the Company's inventions, while certainly not end to end solutions are literally the backbone technology of, including but not limited to, MPEG and DVD, pose formidable
competitive threats to those pools as graphically portrayed by Exhibit S, and certainly
pose a threat, by this one example, to Respondent’s fee of $8,500 per essential patent;
Respondent counts among his clients both licensors (Alcatel) and licensees (Alcatel, CCube
Microsystems, Divicom a unit of Harmonic) of MPEG evidenced by comparing his
biography at http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/4747 with MPEG LA licensors and licensees at http://www.mpegla.com/.

Moreover, in his response, Respondent relies upon the testimony of certain individuals,
including, but not limited to Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Utley, Mr. Raymond T. Hersh, the former

Chief Financial Officer of the Company, and Gerald Lewin, a principal in the accounting
firm of Goldstein Lewin & Company of Boca Raton, Fla. and the Company’s former
outside C.P.A. firm.

Furthermore, as to Mr. Wheeler, and wherein he states in his deposition that stems from
that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is instructive for
these purposes, that Respondent did not perform any patent work or patent oversight
work, 40 then in another instance Mr. Wheeler states that he contacts Respondent to
determine what Respondent needs to determine the patentability of the Company’s
inventions,41 as evidenced by Exhibit T attached herein, and referencing Mr. Wheeler’s
letter to a one Richard Rossman also contained in Exhibit T.

Additionally, in his Florida Bar response, Mr. Wheeler, while he admits of limited instances of consulting Respondent, is found consulting Respondent who fervently has claimed that “The only
thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer 42.”

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note that
the reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on the
testimony of Mr. Christopher Wheeler that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the above declaration it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Wheeler is worthless.

Additionally, as to Mr. Brian Utley, and wherein he states in his deposition, interalia, that
stems from that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is
instructive for these purposes, at one instance that he had no discussions with Respondent
pertaining to the Company’s intellectual property43, and then in another instance states
that he had conversations with Respondent to apprise him of the status of the Company’s
patent prosecution process relative to a proposed contract with Warner Bros.,44 as
evidenced by Exhibit U attached herein.

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note that
the reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on the
testimony of Mr. Brian Utley that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the above
inconsistencies, it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Utley is worthless.

Furthermore, the Company references the testimony of Raymond T. Hersh, former Chief
Financial Officer of the Company stating the satisfaction of the Company with the
services of Proskauer 45.

However, sometime before, and during Mr. Hersh’s tenure with
the Company, we reference an electronic mail message from a one William R. Kasser, a
former accounting consultant of the Company to Eliot Bernstein, wherein Mr. Kasser, as
a result of an account reconciliation, alleges gross fraud in the booking of Company
revenues by Mr. Hersh and Mr. Brian Utley, as evidenced by Exhibit V attached herein.

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note that the reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on the
testimony of Mr. Hersh that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the above
declaration it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Hersh is worthless.

Additionally, the allegations surrounding the representation of Proskauer Rose LLP, through Respondent and Mr. Wheeler, finds support in the many pieces of evidence portrayed in Section I through XII, and the Complaint will still be better served by enlisting the
participation of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee in
securing the following items:

(I) records of Proskauer Rose records to determine the whereabouts of Respondent from the period of mid 1998 to February 1999; (II) records of MLGS, cross referencing the records of Proskauer to determine the whereabouts of Respondent from the period of mid 1998 to February 1999; and (III) an explanation and the series of events that led up to the referral of Mr. Raymond Joao by Respondent.

Lastly, in the near future, the Company intends to: (I) file a claim with the Lawyers' Fund
for Client Protection as a result of the alleged dishonest conduct in the taking of the
Company’s property, to wit, the irresponsible filing of provisional and non-provisional
patent applications under the supervision of Respondent; (II) fulfill its requirement to
report the loss of property to an Attorney Disciplinary (Grievance) Committee; and (III) fulfill its requirement to submit a written statement to the District Attorney of New York County.

Finally, the Company attaches a witness list, as Appendix I, that contains individual
names, addresses, and telephone numbers, all of which shall attest to Respondent’s, who
is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains
to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Raymond Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Brian Utley, Mr. Christopher Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, engagement in a series of dishonesties, appearances of untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation as now conclusively shown by Section I through Section XII, supra, in general, and by Section I Subsection D. paragraphs 1 to 14, in particular
wherein Respondent dishonorably found the need to disavow, interalia:

any knowledge whatsoever of the Company; any knowledge whatsoever of Mr. Bernstein and the other true inventors; any knowledge whatsoever of techniques known as pan and zoom
technology; and through his refusal to answer questions regarding the allegedly
vicariously liable MPEG LA, LLC amongst others; his charge that the deposition was
harassment in that he had nothing to do with the Company; his steadfast denial of
technology known as scaled video; his claim as to never opining on the Company’s
technology; his denial of ever having been involved in meetings concerning the
Company; his denial of ever having any discussion with anyone at Proskauer Rose concerning
the Company’s technology; his admission of not keeping notes or records of his
conversations to Mr. Wheeler;

his acknowledgement of never having billed the Company, though his name appears more than a dozen times, absent those billings that may have purposely removed, in billings from Mr. Christopher Wheeler’s office; his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to the Company’s technologies; his stunning reversal of his possible conversation with third parties regarding the Company’s technologies; and, his lack of knowledge as to why his name appears in an electronic mail message to a member of AOL Time Warner’s investment team, wherein that message states that Respondent opined on the Company’s technologies; the facts of the matter, Mr. Thomas Cahill, when bolstered by Exhibits A through V attached herein, and matched against Respondent’s above referenced disavowals, are clearly beyond dispute.

Sincerely,
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
By: P. Stephen Lamont
by Eliot I. Bernstein
his attorney-in-fact
u
Source Start Page 32
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2012%2015%20Letter%20to%20Thomas%20Cahill%20Re%20Krane%20Conflict.pdf
p