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

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

******

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages 455-462

o November 09, 2001 ~ Brunelas Employment Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2001 Resume Claims the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• February 09, 2009 Lamont Court Filing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages 19-23

o November 20, 2002 Kenneth Rubenstein Deposition and Deposition Exhibits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 38 – ADVISORY BOARD SECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

pages 3-9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CBIZ, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. Sure has Taken on a Huges Liability and VERY Bad PR.

With the Proven involvement of Goldstein Lewin & Company in the Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent Case, for Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.- it is quite Shocking to read the Following Press Real On CBIZ Acquires Goldstein Lewin & Co. - Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. announced the acquisition of the attest business of Goldstein Lewin & Company. Why would you Knowingly buy into a RICO Lawsuit - unless Gerald R. Lewin - Jerry Lewin of Goldstein Lewin & Company failed to Disclose this Liablity.

In a Way I guess it is Good that CBIZ, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. and Steven L. Gerard are assuming this Liability this way Jerry Lewin won't have to take on a Trillion Dollar Liability alone.

I Guess CBIZ, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.does not mind
a Trillion Dollar Liability on the Books.

Here is the Article

"" A FULL-SERVICE ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES PROVIDER

CLEVELAND, Jan. 4 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- CBIZ, Inc. CBZ today announced the acquisition of the non-attest business of Goldstein Lewin & Company, one of the largest South Florida accounting and financial services provider in Boca Raton, Florida, effective January 1, 2010. Concurrent with this transaction, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. announced the acquisition of the attest business of Goldstein Lewin & Company.

CBIZ, Inc. and Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. have an alternative practice structure.

The two companies are separate and independent legal entities that work together to serve clients' business needs.

Founded in 1975, Goldstein Lewin & Co. provides a broad spectrum of services including tax planning and compliance, wealth preservation and estate planning, technology consulting, software consulting, accounting, auditing, business valuation and litigation consulting.

Goldstein Lewin & Co. has 85 associates and recorded approximately $13.7 million in revenue during the past twelve months.

CBIZ will integrate and co-locate its existing financial services office based in Boca Raton with Goldstein Lewin which will strengthen the Company's presence in the South Florida market.

As a result, the Company expects to record a restructuring charge of approximately $1.4 million before tax during 2010 in connection with this integration. Including the impact of this one-time non-cash charge, it is anticipated that this transaction will be accretive to earnings in 2010.

Steven L. Gerard, CBIZ Chairman and CEO, stated, "Goldstein Lewin has been an integral part of the South Florida community for over 30 years with an outstanding reputation for client service and technical expertise.

We look forward to welcoming Jerry Lewin and his highly regarded team to CBIZ. With the combination of Goldstein Lewin and our existing office in Boca Raton in addition to our Miami-based operations, CBIZ will be one of the largest accounting services providers in South Florida."


Commenting on becoming part of the CBIZ organization, Jerry Lewin stated, "We are very excited for our associates and our clients to take our business to the next level. We look forward to joining CBIZ and having the opportunity better serve our clients with the additional resources and expertise that the CBIZ organization can provide."


CBIZ, Inc. provides professional business services that help clients better manage their finances, employees and technology. As one of the largest benefits specialists and one of the largest accounting, valuation and medical practice management companies in the United States, CBIZ provides its clients with financial services including accounting and tax, internal audit, merger and acquisition advisory, and valuation. Employee services include group benefits, property and casualty insurance, payroll, HR consulting and wealth management. CBIZ also provides information technology, hardware and software solutions, healthcare consulting and medical practice management. These services are provided through more than 140 Company offices in 36 states.


Forward-looking statements in this release are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected. Such risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the Company's ability to adequately manage its growth; the Company's dependence on the current trend of outsourcing business services; the Company's dependence on the services of its CEO and other key employees; competitive pricing pressures; general business and economic conditions; and changes in governmental regulation and tax laws affecting its insurance business or its business services operations. A more detailed description of such risks and uncertainties may be found in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

For further information regarding CBIZ, call our Investor Relations Office at (216) 447-9000 or visit our web site at www.cbiz.com .

SOURCE CBIZ, Inc.

http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/category/topicarticle.aspx?feed=PR&Date=20100104&ID=10953996&topic=TOPIC_MERGERS_ACQUISITIONS&isub=1
Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. CBIZ, Goldstein and Lewin Co., RICO Complaint, RICO Lawsuit,Steven L. Gerard, Gerald R. Lewin,

Gerald Lewin and Erika Lewin - Perjury, Fraud, Anti-Trust Violations, Securities Fraud ..

"" Goldstein & Lewin, Co. - Certified Public Accountants

Gerald Lewin and Erika Lewin

Fraud Upon The United States Patent & Trademark OfficeFraud Upon The United States Copyright OfficeFraud Upon The Small Business AdministrationPatent & Copyright Misappropriations

Contributory Frauds: USPTO; EPO;
JPO; Wachovia Securities Fraud;
Iviewit Shareholder Fraud;

Contributory Antitrust Violations

Facilitates RICO Violations
Tortuous Interference with Business Relationships
Conflicts of Interest
Perjured Deposition
False and Misleading Information to Florida Civil Court
Misappropriation and Conversion of Funds

Breach of Fiduciary Duties as
Officer and Board Director Iviewit

Bank & Securities Fraud


Tortuous Interference with Business Contracts

AOLTW/WB - ENCODING DEAL, LICENSE $25,000,000

SONY – MOVIE LINK/HARDWARE APPS

PARAMOUNT PICTURES

CROSSBOW VENTURES/
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

HOLLYWOOD.COM
WACHOVIA PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM ""

Source and Connecting the Dots Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/LEWIN.htm
Erika Lewin,
Gerald R. Lewin

Wildman-Harrold-Allen-and Dixon LLP

Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP

Martyn W. Molyneaux - ("Molyneaux");
Michael Dockterman - ("Dockterman");

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

Wildman-Harrold-Allen-and Dixon LLP

Do NOT Believe the Headlines on the Florida State Bar about "One Rotten Apple" There is a Whole lot more than That Going On - they are Corrupt.

Have you Folks Seen the Headlines Where By Jesse Diner, President of the Florida Bar Tries to Flat OUT Lie to you about the Accountable of Florida Attorneys, the Blatant Ethics Violations and BOLD in your Face Conflict of Interests over and Over, and Jesse Diner ...

well his Job is to Protect the Reputation of the Florida Bar and the Florida Attorneys and NOT to protect the Citizens of Florida or the The Honor and Integrity of the Justice System.


It is not a "One Bad Apple" scenario at the Florida State Bar. They have repeatedly ignored legitimate Proven Complaints. The Florida State Bar was told of Proskauer Rose Attorney Christopher Wheeler over and Over, the Florida State Bar protected Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose in a 12 Trillion Dollar Patent Theft.

It seems to Me that the Job of the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Bar is Only to Protect the Interest of Florida Attorneys.

Eric Turner publicly said that Christopher Wheeler's DUI was a Misdeamoner while the Police Report said it was a Felony. The Florida State Bar is as Corrupt as it comes and though Today's Headlines Flat Out Lie to you it does NOT change the Fact that the Florida State Bar does NOT care about the rights of Victims over the rights or protection Of Attorneys such as Christopher Wheeler and Kenneth Rubenstein both of proskauer Rose Mega-Law firm.

The Florida State Bar does not seem to care about Supreme Court Judges in Florida that would not admit evidence that proved the crimes of these Lawyers as the Judges seems to protect the at Attornity Fraternity.

It Does not matter the facts of the Case, any case really it just matters that the attorneys get 40% of your Settlement and get to Keep Their job, and that they all protect each others breaking of the law, indiscretions, Flat Out Lies and Who Cares if they ruin the lives of the Real Victims over and over again....

The Florida State Bar has a Whole lot more then One Bad Apple in their Midst. There is no accountable at the Florida State Bar, and especially for those who are from the Huge Above the Law, Mega law firms in the Pay to Play Party... you know what I mean..

See the Florida Bar bar folks need to keep up the illusion that they are NOT corrupt and that the Florida Supreme Court is Honorable so that the insurance folks Will keep in the game and they can get all those side deal, and favors owed from the big law firms and corporations they protect.

Yet when you go to them with thousands of documents of proof you see that they only care about those with the most money, power, and political connections such as Proskauer Rose... conflicts of interest .. well they don't care about that either just look at Lawyers like Greenberg Traurig - first on one side of a Case, so they can get all the goods then jump in and Represent the Florida State Bar against Their Original Clients....

Anyway, you get the Picture, there is no Justice, Only Opinion, Pay Offs, Lawyers are Above the Law and NEVER ever believe it is ONLY One Bad apple down their in the Florida Justice System - that is Simply NOT True.

Jesse Diner is either Clueless or Simply of of the Good Ol' Boys down there in Florida Protecting Them There Above the Law Attorneys. Ethics Violations, Conflicts of Interest, Oh Come Now, not In Florida, it just ain't so... Jesse Diner seems to be Delusional in Todays News. Do not be Mis-Led.

The Conflicts of Interest And Ethics Violations run Rampant among the Florida Lack of Justice System and No One Can Do Anything about it. No one can Make the Florida Supreme Court accountable for the Corruption that they ALLOW.

I wonder How Much a Florida Supreme Court Decision Costs? I know in Montana a Supreme Court Decision Costs $50,000 - Not a bad price when you have million dollar judgements overturned.

The Florida Bar is in a 12 Count, 12 Trillion Dollar RICO Lawsuit that legally related by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the US Dis Court NY to a Whistleblower inside the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

The Florida Supreme Court and Jorge Labarga are also named defendants.

Proskauer Rose is at the Center of the Lawsuit and they are also at the center of the Allen Stanford Ponzi, coaching employees on how to lie to the feds.

They are being sued for entire Stanford losses in class action.

Wonder if the Florida State Bar and Proskauer Rose Law Firm
are reporting these liabilities to state and private auditors.

For more information on the 12 Trillion Dollar RICO Lawsuit
heck out www.Iviewit.tv

There is No Florida Justice System

ONLY Lawyers Protecting Lawyers.

Here is Todays Article

"Rotten apples guard The Bar's orchard"

The recent charges of criminal behavior against attorney Scott Rothstein leave no doubt that he is a bad apple in the "orchard" of the Florida Bar. Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of lawyers just like him still practicing law in Florida, under the control of the Florida Bar. Mr. Rothstein's actions bring to question the Florida Bar's inability to protect Floridians from unethical behavior by one of its members. It seems that the hierarchy of the Florida Bar is only protecting its own interests, and the interests of certain members.

Jesse Diner, president of the Florida Bar, recently used the "one rotten apple" approach to protect the Bar's image. What Mr. Diner failed to mention is the ethical violation and conflict of interest that exists between the Florida Bar, a state agency, and Florida Lawyers Mutual Insurance Company, a private, for-profit attorney malpractice insurance company.

The conflict lies with John Harkness acting as the executive director of the Florida Bar as well as a director of FLMIC.

The meshing of these two groups is unethical and leaves the door open for corruption. This special, incestuous relationship protects rogue lawyers who purchase legal malpractice insurance from FLMIC. This conflict of interest leaves Floridians unprotected and vulnerable.

As a director of Baron's Stores Inc., I have witnessed how this incestuous relationship has caused Baron's to be embroiled in a legal malpractice lawsuit against three South Florida attorneys for more than a decade. The attorneys are insured by FLMIC and Great American Insurance Co.

The law firm of Greenberg Traurig is counsel for the Florida Bar and also represents the insurers. This conflict of interest aids and abets the insurers to violate federal anti-trust laws and violate Florida insurance law.

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court unanimously granted Gov. Charlie Crist's petition to create a statewide grand jury to investigate the corruption of state and local officials as well as judicial misconduct, conspiracy and abuse of power within the Florida legal system. Floridians can only hope that Gov. Crist and Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum will finally begin to restore order.

No wonder the American Tort Reform Association has once again named South Florida the No.1 judicial "hellhole" in the nation.

Scott Rothstein is "one rotten apple" in the bunch, but the Florida Bar will never launch any serious investigation into matters that can cripple the organization because the "rotten apples" are the ones guarding the entire "orchard."

Lesley Winston is director of Baron's Stores Inc. in North Miami

Source of Article:

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/commentary/fl-barons-stores-forum-0105-20100104,0,1433557.story

Trillion Dollar Patent Theft
www.DeniedPatent.com
or More Information.
Proskauer Rose

Intel IBM Lockheed SGI in TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL RICO/INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT

Posted Wednesday 23rd December 2009 17:50 GMT

In FTC whacks Intel with anticompetition complaint
IBM has a history of WAR CRIMES?

Currently they are being sued in Federal US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin's court for Aparthied related WAR CRIMES. IBM's role, same as their role in WWII, giving machines to tabulate the loot from victims and track their blood lines to hunt and kill their bloodlines.

Little known fact is that IBM had their employees in every single NAZI concentration camp, yes, somebody needs to count the gold fillings and how many were burned, hanged, shot, showered (gased).

Now for the scary part, their software is involved I believe with Lockheed to be controlling the US Census data collection. Buyer be beware.

PS - on a final note, IBM Intel Lockheed SGI are also in a 12-count, 12-trillion dollar lawsuit, boy I hope they are accounting for it on their books, relating to their role in stealing technologies from Inventor Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies and others. According to FASB No 5, both liabilities need to be accounted for but they are not.

If you own IBM shares you may have rescissory rights dating back to 1999.

Also may be concerned that the LAWSUIT has been marked legally "RELATED" to an inside Whistleblower lawsuit by Judge Scheindlin.

Intel is also involved as a Defendant in the Lawsuit for more information on Intel’s involvement see SEC Complaint exposing possible financial crimes relating to FASB No 5 accounting rules and more @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf (note Bruce Sewell who letter is addressed to with Paul Otellini, just left longtime Intel job for Apple, wonder if Apple knows of his baggage) and

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=234

08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division
First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
Related cases by judge
(08 cv 6368) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
Eliot I. Bernstein


Source of Post
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/38893/

Enter the Law Firm Proskauer Rose - Christopher Clarke Wheeler of Proskauer Rose "Protecting Intellectual Property" - What a Joke.

"First on the scene of these Historical Inventions in Boca Raton, Florida, Christopher Clarke Wheeler of Proskauer, Proskauer Rose was then retained for protecting the Intellectual Properties, including protecting them worldwide via Patents, Trademarks, Trade-Secrets and Copyrights. For example, Wheeler misrepresented to the Iviewit companies that attorney Kenneth Rubenstein was a Partner at Proskauer when introducing him.

Yet, to the contrary, investors found Kenneth Rubenstein was instead at the law firm of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolfe & Schlissel ( Meltzer ) on Long Island at the time, Kenneth Rubenstein , now one of the many named Defendants in my Twelve Trillion dollar RICO and Anti-Trust suit “legally related” to Anderson. Why would Proskauer misrepresent that Rubenstein was a partner who would protect the properties when in fact he was with another firm?

The answer revolves around the fact that Proskauer at the time of learning of the inventions had NO Patent or Intellectual Property Department and was mainly a real estate law firm. If they were planning from the start to steal the “Holy Grail” technologies, they would need a patent department to monetize the royalties for themselves.

Turns out that Kenneth Rubenstein, an attorney admitted and regulated by the NYS First Dept, while at Meltzer, simultaneously was involved with the MPEGLA Patent Pool that he was in house counsel for and one of the founders of the MPEGLA pooling scheme.

Proskauer then set about to find for their benefit, not their clients benefit, Rubenstein, to apply the technologies to the MPEGLA patent pools and more for themselves. After finding Rubenstein, Proskauer introduced him as Proskauer’s Partner for the Oversight and Protection of the Inventions and the main IP Litigator who would get the IP protected and then placed in the MPEGLA pools for royalties to the Iviewit investors.

Misrepresented Proskauer partner Raymond Joao was retained to complete the Intellectual Property filing work in the US and every country around the world for IP protections.

Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao thought initially to be Proskauer Rose partners in New York working to protect the Iviewit Inventions took invention disclosures from the inventors, opined on the technologies under Proskauer’s retainer for services at the time, while they were actually working on the MPEGLA Patent Pools at Meltzer and were not with Proskauer Rose at all.

Once investors discovered Proskauer’s misrepresentation of Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao as Proskauer partners, when instead with the law firm Meltzer, Kenneth Rubenstein quickly switched firms to Proskauer Rose LLP.

Christopher Wheeler claiming that Proskauer ROse was in the process of acquiring Kenneth Rubenstein and virtually overnight Kenneth Rubenstein jumped ship with almost the entire Meltzer IP group to Proskauer Rose.

Details of Kenneth Rubenstein’s transfer were not clear to Rubenstein or Wheeler in their depositions related to these matters; in fact, Rubenstein was even unclear as to the terms of his partnership deal.

The net result of these fraudulent misrepresentations was that it now gave Proskauer, Iviewit Patent Counsel, control of the MPEGLA patent pooling schemes, putting Proskauer in direct competition with Iviewit via control of MPEGLA.

MPEGLA now the largest infringer of the Iviewit technologies through this massive Conflict of Interest created by Violations of Virtually All Attorney Conduct Codes and Law by the Attorneys.

A Conflict of Interest almost surreal in nature since attorneys are typically retained as “trusted” advisors considering there are supposed to be very strict federal Patent Bar and State Bar Association rules that presumably prevent lawyers and law firms from these type of conflicts with their trusting clients.

Raymond Joao on the other hand, also misrepresented as Kenneth Rubenstein’s Proskauer Partner and filing lackey was also instead working with Rubenstein at the Meltzer firm but he did not transfer from Meltzer to Proskauer Rose with Kenneth Rubenstein and the rest of the Meltzer team. Raymond Joao was to transfer to Proskauer Rose after cleaning up loose ends at Meltzer according to Wheeler.

Yet, Raymond Joao never made it that far, as within the first year of his work on the IP, it became learned that Joao might have been patenting inventions in his own name, inventions learned under disclosure and retainer with Iviewit and the Inventors.

Proskauer Rose and Christopher Wheeler confronted with the initial rumors that Raymond Joao, their operate, was filing patents wrongly on behalf of the Inventors and perhaps the right ones for himself instead. Wheeler of Proskauer volunteered to investigate Joao and was then further retained and billed for investigating the initial allegations that Joao was missing filings for Iviewit while busy patenting them in his name.

Raymond Joao the attorney Proskauer Rose referred and retained for Iviewit whom they had misrepresented to Investors and Board Members initially as a Proskauer partner, never made the conversion to Proskauer, terminated by Proskauer from Iviewit and then Raymond Joao left Meltzer and took a new position with now recently Convicted Felon Marc S. Dreier ( Dreier ). Marc Dreier convicted in a Ponzi scheme second only to that of Bernard Madoff ( Madoff ) and Sir Robert Allen Stanford ( Stanford ).

While advising the Iviewit companies on the Intellectual Properties, which posed a competitive threat to MPEGLA, including possible extinction of the MPEGLA pool without a license from Iviewit; Rubenstein, Proskauer and Meltzer then failed to put up a China Wall to protect the Inventions from this MASSIVE Conflict of Interest between Proskauer, Rubenstein and Proskauer’s new client MPEGLA & Iviewit.

Instead, they did the exact opposite and allowed MPEGLA to use the IP for their benefit while using Anti-Competitive Monopolistic practices to eliminate the Inventors and the Iviewit Companies and Shareholders. Perhaps, Joao’s 90+ patents were to be included in the MPEGLA patent pooling scheme by Kenneth Rubenstein, so that royalties could then be shared disproportionately with other inventors in the pool, 90+ patents giving a large share of the divided license royalties from the pool.

With Kenneth Rubenstein as Patent Counsel and the sole Patent Gatekeeper to the MPEGLA IP pools, it would be a no brainer, if Joao had not happened to get caught and a snowball of other crimes began surfacing at about the same time which led to uncovering evidence of a massive criminal enterprise operating within and controlling certain government agencies, law enforcement agencies and courts.

No wonder the Justice Department has historically broken up patent pooling schemes using Anti-Trust regulations, as this form of pooling works to deny ma and pa inventors of their Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 8, inventor rights.

Intellectual Property Rights protected at the top of the Constitution, I quote,

United States Constitution Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 8

The Congress shall have power To…Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

These Inventor Protections are the cornerstone of Free Commerce in the United States. In the past, allegations of pooling schemes actually in the business of murdering inventors to steal their inventions or other such heinous crimes discovered have led to the breakup of patent pools like RCA’s and Singer Sewing’s in order to protect inventors.

Typically Inventors need Constitutional Protection, the only civil job protected explicity by the Constitution, is due to corporations attempting to deny royalties through heavy handed methods not ones lawyers trying to steal their clients inventions. "

Source of This Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+Reardon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Proskauer ROse Sucks

Trillion Dollar Patent Heist.

Proskauer Rose Sucks