Is the SEC Listening, LOOKING... do they even Care.. or will Mary Schapiro and the SEC just sit and wait for a Multi-Billion to Trillion Dollar Scandal and they say Whoops.. We had NO WAY to Know.. and then Of Course Investigative Blogger, Crystal L. Cox will have to Say What a Crock That is - Because does ANYONE at the SEC know How To work GOOGLE... ??? or any Search Engine Really.. or Possibly READ Complaints... ???
Warner Bros. - has broke the Law and in the process put shareholders at HUGE risk, why is Jeffrey Bewkes ignoring this blatant proof of Fraud.
Warner Bros signed multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements and Warner Bros. Signed License and Service Agreements with the Iviewit Company. 9 years have passed and Warner Bros. Blatantly and Illegally Violated those agreements long ago, why?
And Now Eliot Bernstein Founder and one of the Inventors it the Iviewit Stolen Patent has filed a very informative, incredibly detailed SEC Complaint. One that for Now Mary Schapiro and the SEC seems to be ignoring... I am not sure why just yet.. but hope to get tips on this soon...
Some of the Warner Bros' Iviewit Timeline and more details
of the Warner Bros. Relationship with the Iviewit Company.
" " TIMELINE OF WARNER BROS ET AL. RELATIONSHIP WITH IVIEWIT
The following Timelines are presented to give a factual timeline to the allegations herein, the exhibits are linked online and all Uniform Resource Locators (“URL”) and Exhibited Links throughout this document are hereby incorporated, in entirety by reference herein, including over 1000 evidentiary links on the homepage at www.iviewit.tv with exhibits that contain thousands of pages of factual evidence[5].
The timeline will also reveal facts regarding the relationships between many of the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and Warner Bros et al., including relations to the main perpetrator of the alleged crimes, the law firm Proskauer Rose.
*Note Warner Bros et al. relevant mergers, acquisitions and breakups to these matters in the timeline below are in bold italics.
1998-2002
Relevant Communications Between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al.
· 1998-2001
Inventions in Imaging and Video Discovered and Intellectual Property Filings begin in 1998. Proskauer Rose was retained Intellectual Property counsel for Iviewit for filing of Intellectual Properties.
· 2000-2002
Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.
Non-Disclosure Agreements @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf
Pages 1-5, 10, 61-62, 80, 108-109, 234
· November 02, 2000 ~ Letter to GS regarding Warner Bros. Technological Calls to Iviewit Investors by Warner Bros. employees, describing the efficacy of the Inventions and the results of the review by Warner Bros., including the anticipated uses by Warner Bros et al.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20001101%20Goldman%20Friedstein%20Letter%20from%20Buchsbaum%20re%20AOLTW%20Colter%20meetings.pdf
· January 11, 2001 ~ America Online and Time Warner Complete Merger to Create AOL Time Warner
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668364,00.html
· February 08, 2001 ~ Letter from David J. Colter (“Colter”) ~ Vice President Technology - Technological Operations Warner Bros. to Founder of AOL, Ted Leonsis (“Leonsis”), regarding the efficacy of the Iviewit technologies.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010208%20Colter%20to%20Leonsis%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL.pdf
· February 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - Signed Warner Bros. License And Service Agreement @
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf
August 15, 2001 Irell & Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Paul%20Allen/old%20patent/LEGAL/Irell%20&%20Manella/Bills/2001%2008%2029%20-%20Irell%20Bill.pdf
It is imperative for the SEC to note that after the Signed Licensing and Service Agreement, Iviewit opened a California Office inside a Warner Bros. building, in order to take over encoding operations for their online content, and more.
Iviewit began billing according to the Licensing and Service agreement. Please note the language in the Licensing and Service agreement pertaining to the Proprietary nature and Confidentiality of the Iviewit inventions.
Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein ’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees.
Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office[6]. At this point, allegedly, a coordinated conspiratorial effort between Smith, Rubenstein and others began to derail the already signed Iviewit agreements with Warner Bros et al.
Allegedly, former “Acting CEO” of Iviewit, P. Stephen Lamont, (a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement. Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the Signed and Binding agreement is wholly denied.
The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, it may still be considered effective. Yet, it would difficult to cancel what one tries to deny the existence of and perhaps the reason no cancellation was formally completed.
o The emails forward from this point in the timeline begin to attempt to hide from the fact that Licensing and Service Agreements were already in place while also hiding these facts and liabilities from Shareholders and Auditors.
The alleged fraud may again have catastrophic effect on these highly traded stocks, reaching back to this point in time and possibly further back.
· April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. "Bill" Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL. AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010404%20Colter%20to%20Raduchel%20Leonsis%20referral%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf
· May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Chey, formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony (also under Signed Agreements) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor.
Since that time, Warner Bros et al. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010525%20Sony%20Doug%20Chey%20Endorsement%20of%20Tech%20and%20Advisory%20Board%20Option%20letter.pdf
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100120%20Douglas%20Chey%20Sony%20Bio.pdf
The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION of Sony’s involvement in these matters. Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors.
I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony.
The SEC and all other investigators and committees addressed herein, can take this Formal Complaint additionally as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY. ""
Source of Post and of Warner Bros SEC Complaint
So Where is Mary Schapiro on this One ?
jeffrey bewkes
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Immediate Attention to TWX, AOL, Warner Brothers, and Time Inc. Shareholders. SEC Complaint Against AOL,TWX, Time Warner... Pay Attention.
Eliot Bernsteing of Iviewit Technologies Filed and SEC Complaint Regarding Time Warner, Jeffrey Bewkes, Wayne Smith and YOUR MONEY...
This Complaint Alleges and Seems to Prove Massive Shareholder Fraud, and Could Lead to a Total Financial Collapse of Time Warner and AOL.
"" Time Sensitive Urgency to this Complaint; Potential Catastrophic Effects to the Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.; Fraud could Trigger Rescissory Shareholder Rights
To further establish the urgency and Time Sensitive nature of this FORMAL COMPLAINT, please note that the criminal fraud and other crimes described herein will likely trigger Rescissory Rights of Shareholders at all of the respective and related companies of Warner Bros et al., which likely will have Catastrophic impact on both the companies and its Shareholders.
Therefore, the SEC must instantly investigate these matters and instantly bring the matters to the attention of the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders, Auditors, Financial Institutions and all other parties with potential liabilities resulting from the allegations herein and whereby if the companies and their Executives fail to notify Shareholders and Regulators, the SEC must act quickly to notify them.
The SEC must begin immediate investigation of the Securities Frauds described herein and prevent ongoing and future fraudulent corporate transactions from further harming Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.
Further, I point out to the SEC herein what looks like a recent pattern of Shareholder Fraud and Deceit done with Scienter, beginning on or about March 2009, by Officers, Directors, Counsel and Auditors for Warner Bros et al., which are alleged to have been done in order to commit further fraud upon the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders. That these recent corporate restructurings may be the result of Key Executives of Warner Bros et al. attempting to abscond with corporate assets through a series of recent complex corporate breakups.
The breakups began immediately after I contacted Warner Bros. in March 2009 with my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq. (“Hall”), regarding massive unreported liabilities to their Shareholders[4].
Liabilities resulting from Warner Bros et. al’s involvement in my Twelve Count Twelve Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and additional liabilities resulting from the knowing infringement of my Intellectual Properties and for their failure to report these liabilities under FASB No.5 and other laws.
This Formal Complaint for Investigation of Warner Bros et al. on this day, Friday, February 12, 2010comes after Hall and I made repeated Good Faith attempts since March 2009 to address the Business and Corporate Responsibility issues with Executives, Officers, Board Members and Auditors at the respective companies.
Warner Bros et al. was contacted in order to find possible solutions to avoid catastrophic events from occurring to their Shareholders, if possible, prior to further actions with investigators, including the SEC.
The following timeline of events will establish the correlations between the allegations of fraud described herein, in relation to the timing of the corporate restructurings of Warner Bros et al. Correlations in time with both the 2001 merger and now in the 2009 breakup with the frauds described herein, will provide the SEC a basis, mired in factual evidence, to begin immediate investigation of this complaint for massive securities fraud, in order to protect Shareholders from further possible related losses in these highly traded blue chip stocks. ""
Full Warner Brothers, Jeffrey Bewkes SEC Complaint Click Here
Who is Looking out for AOL and Warner Brothers Shareholders? Well we know it is not Mary Schapiro of the SEC.
This Complaint Alleges and Seems to Prove Massive Shareholder Fraud, and Could Lead to a Total Financial Collapse of Time Warner and AOL.
"" Time Sensitive Urgency to this Complaint; Potential Catastrophic Effects to the Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.; Fraud could Trigger Rescissory Shareholder Rights
To further establish the urgency and Time Sensitive nature of this FORMAL COMPLAINT, please note that the criminal fraud and other crimes described herein will likely trigger Rescissory Rights of Shareholders at all of the respective and related companies of Warner Bros et al., which likely will have Catastrophic impact on both the companies and its Shareholders.
Therefore, the SEC must instantly investigate these matters and instantly bring the matters to the attention of the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders, Auditors, Financial Institutions and all other parties with potential liabilities resulting from the allegations herein and whereby if the companies and their Executives fail to notify Shareholders and Regulators, the SEC must act quickly to notify them.
The SEC must begin immediate investigation of the Securities Frauds described herein and prevent ongoing and future fraudulent corporate transactions from further harming Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.
Further, I point out to the SEC herein what looks like a recent pattern of Shareholder Fraud and Deceit done with Scienter, beginning on or about March 2009, by Officers, Directors, Counsel and Auditors for Warner Bros et al., which are alleged to have been done in order to commit further fraud upon the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders. That these recent corporate restructurings may be the result of Key Executives of Warner Bros et al. attempting to abscond with corporate assets through a series of recent complex corporate breakups.
The breakups began immediately after I contacted Warner Bros. in March 2009 with my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq. (“Hall”), regarding massive unreported liabilities to their Shareholders[4].
Liabilities resulting from Warner Bros et. al’s involvement in my Twelve Count Twelve Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and additional liabilities resulting from the knowing infringement of my Intellectual Properties and for their failure to report these liabilities under FASB No.5 and other laws.
This Formal Complaint for Investigation of Warner Bros et al. on this day, Friday, February 12, 2010comes after Hall and I made repeated Good Faith attempts since March 2009 to address the Business and Corporate Responsibility issues with Executives, Officers, Board Members and Auditors at the respective companies.
Warner Bros et al. was contacted in order to find possible solutions to avoid catastrophic events from occurring to their Shareholders, if possible, prior to further actions with investigators, including the SEC.
The following timeline of events will establish the correlations between the allegations of fraud described herein, in relation to the timing of the corporate restructurings of Warner Bros et al. Correlations in time with both the 2001 merger and now in the 2009 breakup with the frauds described herein, will provide the SEC a basis, mired in factual evidence, to begin immediate investigation of this complaint for massive securities fraud, in order to protect Shareholders from further possible related losses in these highly traded blue chip stocks. ""
Full Warner Brothers, Jeffrey Bewkes SEC Complaint Click Here
Who is Looking out for AOL and Warner Brothers Shareholders? Well we know it is not Mary Schapiro of the SEC.
Kenneth Rubenstein named in SEC Complaint. Iviewit Founder and Inventor Eliot Bernstein Files SEC Complaint on Trillion Dollar Patent Liability.
Proskauer Rose Named in SEC Complaint
" April 27, 1999 letter from Richard R. Rosman, Esq. to Hassan Miah regarding the Iviewit inventions and Proskauer Rose Partner Rubenstein’s opinion on the technologies. Note that Rubenstein and Miah know each other through MPEG and Miah’s former employer XING. Immediately after learning of the Iviewit inventions, Miah sold XING to Real Networks as indicated above.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/1999%2004%2026%20Wheeler%20Letter%20to%20Rosman%20re%20Rubenstein%20opinion.pdf "
Click here for SEC Complaint Naming Proskaur Rose LLP
" This FORMAL OFFICIAL COMPLAINT is filed with the Official SEC Complaint Intake Email Address: enforcement@sec.gov & CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov and also filed with all investigators or committees the letter is addressed to, please make this Formal Complaint a part of all ongoing investigations or committees’ records regarding Iviewit companies and Eliot I, Bernstein, Inventor.
Re: Official Formal Complaint sent by Official SEC Email and Official Email Addresses to Other Investigatory Agencies and Committees addressed herein, Against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. and Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 and other SEC, accounting violations and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws; Rescissory rights of Shareholders; Evidence and Important Information for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and more.
Complaint filed against, including but not limited to;
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. Chairman and CEO: Barry M. Meyer; President and COO: Alan F. Horn; EVP and CFO: Edward A. Romano; Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne M. Smith
AOL, Inc. Chairman and CEO: Tim Armstrong; General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development: Ira Parker; Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing: Christopher Day; Executive Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley
Time Warner, Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer: Jeffrey L. Bewkes; Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Time Warner Inc.: Paul T. Cappuccio "
Source of Post and Full SEC Complaint Click HERE
Where is Mary Schapiro ?
Posted Here by Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
" April 27, 1999 letter from Richard R. Rosman, Esq. to Hassan Miah regarding the Iviewit inventions and Proskauer Rose Partner Rubenstein’s opinion on the technologies. Note that Rubenstein and Miah know each other through MPEG and Miah’s former employer XING. Immediately after learning of the Iviewit inventions, Miah sold XING to Real Networks as indicated above.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/1999%2004%2026%20Wheeler%20Letter%20to%20Rosman%20re%20Rubenstein%20opinion.pdf "
Click here for SEC Complaint Naming Proskaur Rose LLP
" This FORMAL OFFICIAL COMPLAINT is filed with the Official SEC Complaint Intake Email Address: enforcement@sec.gov & CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov and also filed with all investigators or committees the letter is addressed to, please make this Formal Complaint a part of all ongoing investigations or committees’ records regarding Iviewit companies and Eliot I, Bernstein, Inventor.
Re: Official Formal Complaint sent by Official SEC Email and Official Email Addresses to Other Investigatory Agencies and Committees addressed herein, Against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. and Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 and other SEC, accounting violations and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws; Rescissory rights of Shareholders; Evidence and Important Information for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and more.
Complaint filed against, including but not limited to;
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. Chairman and CEO: Barry M. Meyer; President and COO: Alan F. Horn; EVP and CFO: Edward A. Romano; Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne M. Smith
AOL, Inc. Chairman and CEO: Tim Armstrong; General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development: Ira Parker; Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing: Christopher Day; Executive Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley
Time Warner, Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer: Jeffrey L. Bewkes; Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Time Warner Inc.: Paul T. Cappuccio "
Source of Post and Full SEC Complaint Click HERE
Where is Mary Schapiro ?
Posted Here by Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Eliot Bernstein - Iviewit Technologies Reporting Stephen Lamont to the New York Attorney General
on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
To Steven Michael Cohen
Counselor and Chief of Staff
New York Attorney General
Dated: June 18th, 2009
Re: First Department Obstruction of Justice
Letter to Steven M. Cohen, NYAG
From Eliot I. Bernstein Founder and Inventor
I~view~it Technologies, INC
I~view~it Holdings,Inc
This Letter is About Obstruction of Justice, Conflicts of Interest and More.. This Letter to the NYAG also includes information on Eliot Bernstein, Founder and One of the Inventors of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. - Complaining to the NYAG that Stephen Lamont has been requested to cease making representations of behalf of Iviewit and its Share Holders... Read FULL Document Below - and Decide the Truth for Yourself.
Click Here for Document
Counselor and Chief of Staff
New York Attorney General
Dated: June 18th, 2009
Re: First Department Obstruction of Justice
Letter to Steven M. Cohen, NYAG
From Eliot I. Bernstein Founder and Inventor
I~view~it Technologies, INC
I~view~it Holdings,Inc
This Letter is About Obstruction of Justice, Conflicts of Interest and More.. This Letter to the NYAG also includes information on Eliot Bernstein, Founder and One of the Inventors of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. - Complaining to the NYAG that Stephen Lamont has been requested to cease making representations of behalf of Iviewit and its Share Holders... Read FULL Document Below - and Decide the Truth for Yourself.
Click Here for Document
posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Industry Whistleblower
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
Senator John L. Sampson - US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit - Anderson v The State of New York
US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit - Anderson v The State of NewYork, et al.
Letter from Eliot I. Bernstein, Founder and Inventor - I-view-it Technologies to Senator John L. Sampson Chairman and to ALL members of the New York Judiciary Committe.
Oct. 2009
Click Here for the Document
... US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599)
Anderson v The State of New York, et al.
Criminal Allegations Requiring
Senator John L. Sampson's Immediate Attention.
In Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's US Federal Court
Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Reveals
a "Cleaner", Naomi Goldstein, at the
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Department ETHICS Committee allegedly
Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA's and more,
Inventor Eliot Bernstein's Family Minivan Bombed in US
Patent Office Fraud files Twelve Trillion Dollar RICO Suit legally "related"
by Judge Scheindlin to the Whistleblower case (08-4873-cv US Court of
Appeals Second Circuit) and US District Court (07cv11196).
Where was the Press through all this, the Right Arm of Anarchy, not a single
report in over five years regarding a Car Bombing so powerful it blew up
three cars next to it in Boynton Beach Florida and not a single press story?
Where was the Press for the Whistleblower revelations of Whitewashing of
Complaints by the New York Supreme Court for US Attorneys and District
Attorneys, a Cleaner at the Ethics Department that regulates Wall Street
Lawyers? ....
more at www.Iviewit.TV and at
www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal L. Cox
Letter from Eliot I. Bernstein, Founder and Inventor - I-view-it Technologies to Senator John L. Sampson Chairman and to ALL members of the New York Judiciary Committe.
Oct. 2009
Click Here for the Document
... US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599)
Anderson v The State of New York, et al.
Criminal Allegations Requiring
Senator John L. Sampson's Immediate Attention.
In Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's US Federal Court
Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Reveals
a "Cleaner", Naomi Goldstein, at the
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Department ETHICS Committee allegedly
Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA's and more,
Inventor Eliot Bernstein's Family Minivan Bombed in US
Patent Office Fraud files Twelve Trillion Dollar RICO Suit legally "related"
by Judge Scheindlin to the Whistleblower case (08-4873-cv US Court of
Appeals Second Circuit) and US District Court (07cv11196).
Where was the Press through all this, the Right Arm of Anarchy, not a single
report in over five years regarding a Car Bombing so powerful it blew up
three cars next to it in Boynton Beach Florida and not a single press story?
Where was the Press for the Whistleblower revelations of Whitewashing of
Complaints by the New York Supreme Court for US Attorneys and District
Attorneys, a Cleaner at the Ethics Department that regulates Wall Street
Lawyers? ....
more at www.Iviewit.TV and at
www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal L. Cox
Iviewit Stolen Patent Case - Need to Know More about Iviewit Technologies and Who has the authority to do What?
Internal Iviewit Document ... Proskauer Rose LLP, Christopher Wheeler - Proskauer Rose Attorney, Billing, Incorporation, Investment and Shareholder information and well, a Mega Need to Know Document... to help you to understand WHO has the authority to do what in regard to and on behalf of the Iviewit Company ... who billed what to whom and ... well, Lot's of Information.
Click Here for Document
Click Here for Document
it is Rather Large - Give it a Few ... to Load..
Posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Iviewit Stolen Patent Case - On What or Whose Authority is P. Stephen Lamont Acting On?
Why is Stephen Lamont Threatening to End the Affairs of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox? Why is Stephen Lamont Demanding that I Copy him on my emails to anyone regarding the Iviewit Company?
Why in the World would Stephen Lamont Threat my Life, and my "Affairs", just because I posted a document and words THAT were NOT mine... ???
Does Stephen Lamont have the Legal Authority
to Speak on behalf of the Iviewit Company?
Can P. Stephen Lamont Legally File Federal Documents to QUASH Eliot Bernstein's Motion .. when Mr. Lamont was Fired, Long .. Long ago ?
Iviewit, Eliot Bernstein Says:
" Lamont was not approved by any board, as the board disbanded illegally and without noticing the shareholders and so I hired lamont and offered him stock in the company. Later we learned from Garber and other law firms that we could not act on behalf of Iviewit in official capacity until the books and corporate records were fixed, approximately 50k and that is why lamont claims he was advised by counsel to work outside the company and not as an officer, as he legally was never an officer."
More on Iviewit.. and Lamont
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/02/p-stephen-lamont-friend-or-foe-of.html
Posted by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
This is not My Story .. it is However, the Greatest Patent Story every Told, and well I find it intriguing So I post about it.. I Found the Information on www.Iviewit.TV where the story has been running for 8 Years.
I link to that site in Which Stephen Lamont also promotes.
SO why threaten me for posting information from that site and directly from the REAL owner .. and one of the Inventors of the Iviewit Patent.. Why Terrorize me for simply reading a Website and posting pieces of it on my site and linking to the site...??
Why has, P. Stephen Lamont, an Alleged Former CEO of Iviewit Technologies Inc. Threatened me for posting information that is not mine.
And it is Reported to ME that Stephen Lamont has Joined and or Created a Hate Group, and is actively recruiting others to join him in this group that is threatening to Incarcerate me, Burn Me at the Stake, Ruin Me, and Telling Lie upon Lie about me.. and my Business.. all because I Posted Excerpts from the Iviewit Website.
I just don't Understand. I have no Bad intentions.
I am simply writing about an 8 Year Old Stolen Patent Story
that is and has been already on the Web for 8 years....
Not my Story...
I am Just a Modern Day
Investigate Journalist.. which means
I Read..
I Post...
that Simple..
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.iViewit.TV
Crystal Cox Blog
Why in the World would Stephen Lamont Threat my Life, and my "Affairs", just because I posted a document and words THAT were NOT mine... ???
Does Stephen Lamont have the Legal Authority
to Speak on behalf of the Iviewit Company?
Can P. Stephen Lamont Legally File Federal Documents to QUASH Eliot Bernstein's Motion .. when Mr. Lamont was Fired, Long .. Long ago ?
Iviewit, Eliot Bernstein Says:
" Lamont was not approved by any board, as the board disbanded illegally and without noticing the shareholders and so I hired lamont and offered him stock in the company. Later we learned from Garber and other law firms that we could not act on behalf of Iviewit in official capacity until the books and corporate records were fixed, approximately 50k and that is why lamont claims he was advised by counsel to work outside the company and not as an officer, as he legally was never an officer."
More on Iviewit.. and Lamont
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/02/p-stephen-lamont-friend-or-foe-of.html
Posted by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
This is not My Story .. it is However, the Greatest Patent Story every Told, and well I find it intriguing So I post about it.. I Found the Information on www.Iviewit.TV where the story has been running for 8 Years.
I link to that site in Which Stephen Lamont also promotes.
SO why threaten me for posting information from that site and directly from the REAL owner .. and one of the Inventors of the Iviewit Patent.. Why Terrorize me for simply reading a Website and posting pieces of it on my site and linking to the site...??
Why has, P. Stephen Lamont, an Alleged Former CEO of Iviewit Technologies Inc. Threatened me for posting information that is not mine.
And it is Reported to ME that Stephen Lamont has Joined and or Created a Hate Group, and is actively recruiting others to join him in this group that is threatening to Incarcerate me, Burn Me at the Stake, Ruin Me, and Telling Lie upon Lie about me.. and my Business.. all because I Posted Excerpts from the Iviewit Website.
I just don't Understand. I have no Bad intentions.
I am simply writing about an 8 Year Old Stolen Patent Story
that is and has been already on the Web for 8 years....
Not my Story...
I am Just a Modern Day
Investigate Journalist.. which means
I Read..
I Post...
that Simple..
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.iViewit.TV
Crystal Cox Blog
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Was Mary Shapiro - SEC Chairman a KNOWN Risk to You Investors and Shareholders out THERE? Does anyone Care?
Securities and Exchange Commission - News Archives
"" [The Financial Meltdown]
President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Mary Schapiro as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission may go down as his worst appointment.
Schapiro, in her capacity as President of NASD Regulation and later CEO of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), was directly responsible for ensuring that Bernie Madoff's firm, BLM Securities, obeyed federal securities laws.
Schapiro in her capacity as Commissioner and acting-Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and later as President of NASD Regulation, has covered up more violations of federal securities law than Madoff has violated.
And yes, Bernie Madoff pulled off his scam when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation and Chairperson of FINRA, which regulates NASD!
Schapiro never investigated Madoff, probably because Madoff was a powerful individual, a former Chairman of NASD.
I’m privy to this information because I was a trader on Wall Street many years ago. Beginning in 1991 I had written to Steven Lister, Senior Vice President of Compliance at the American Stock Exchange (AMEX).
I requested that, as a former member of the American Stock Exchange, I be granted access to my records.
The American Stock Exchange never replied.
Whenever I saw Lister, I asked him when he would grant me access to my records, Lister would simply state: "No."
Little background. Members of the board of AMEX had told other members that I had been evicted from AMEX for refusing to pass through a metal detector; in reality I had exposed the fact that another member of the Board had been apprehended with an unregistered pistol after he went through metal detectors at AMEX. I wanted to see whether the false information about me was in my AMEX files.
On July 26, 1993, I wrote to Mary Schapiro and requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission order the American Stock Exchange to permit me access to my files after Lister again refused to grant me access to my records. Of course this is a violation of federal securities laws, but that did not matter to Schapiro.
And SEC attorney, GayLa D. Sessoms, in a letter dated August 23, 1993 claimed "the Commission does not have the authority to compel the AMEX to produce records to you."
Schapiro knew that AMEX was a hotbed of illegal activity by the Italian Mafia-but Schapiro always looked to greener pastures.
I did not expect this lack of support from Schapiro. After all, I executed orders for Frost & Sullivan, a trading firm, on the floor of the AMEX.
When the inside trading scandal in Motel 6 was exposed –a foreign company was planning to bid on Motel 6, which was a nationwide chain of budget motels, but the information leaked and Frost & Sullivan traded illegally on it— I was investigated by the SEC.
I was the only individual who was connected to the three firms involved in this insider trading scandal that did not trade on Motel 6 insider information and thereby profit illegally. I was also the only individual who possessed knowledge of the extent of the insider trading in Motel 6 who was not subpoenaed by the SEC.
Why? Because according to Joseph Greenwald, a trader with another firm, who pleaded guilty to insider trading in Motel 6, James Breeden, at the time Chairman of the SEC, and Mary Schapiro, who was then an SEC Commissioner, had ordered the SEC to limit the scope of the investigation. The intent was to protect senior members of the AMEX and Bear Stearns who had knowledge of the Motel 6 insider information.
On September 13, 1993 I met with Assistant United States Attorney Frances Fragos (who later, as Frances Fragos-Townsend was to become George W. Bush’s Homeland Security adviser) at 1 Saint Andrew Plaza, in Manhattan, to discuss the Italian Mafia's penetration of the AMEX; the insider trading scandal in Motel 6; payoffs to AMEX Compliance Attorneys by the Italian Mafia; payoffs by the Italian Mafia to members of the Board of the American Stock Exchange; the theft of $500,000 by a vice president of the AMEX; the stock fraud at a company named PNF; involvement of members of the Board of the AMEX in the stock fraud at PNF; and, a host of other crimes.
I had first approached the FBI to expose these crimes and the agency then arranged for me to meet with Frances Fragos.
(When I showed Fragos the letter from Sessoms, she told me that Sessoms had lied and that in fact the SEC had the authority to order the AMEX to grant me access to my records.
I was convinced that the SEC and AMEX knew that once I obtained my records, I could have forced investigations that would have exposed other major crimes; yet I needed my records as a launching point).
Of course the SEC had powers over the AMEX.
For example, in 1977 the AMEX gave mild disciplinary sanctions against about 20 members for posting fictitious options trades.
The SEC overruled the AMEX disciplinary actions and suspended the 20 or so members of the AMEX involved in this fraud, including future members of the Board of the AMEX, such as William Silver, Louis Miceli, and Robert VanCaneghan..
In 1995 when Schapiro was a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a huge illegal trading scandal erupted at the AMEX.
Pat Schettino, a rogue trader and managing director of Spear Leeds and Kellogg, falsified trades; marked options positions; produced fictitious trading records; stole money from AMEX members; violated the net capital rule (the type of offense for which Ivan Boesky later went to prison); and, even entered trades at fictitious prices.
When I wrote numerous letters to the SEC and members of the Board of the AMEX about Schettino's illegal trading, he hired Eric Levine, an attorney at Proskauer Rose and sued me for defamation. The SEC did nothing; even after I had written to the SEC, including Schapiro, about Schettino's massive illegal trading.
By taking no action, the SEC countenanced Schettino's actions against me. The AMEX delayed investigating Schettino for years. Two attorneys for the AMEX, Steven Lister and Phil Axelrod, who were supposed to be investigating Schettino even taunted me about Schettino's defamation lawsuit and told me that they hoped that I would lose.
In 1998 NASD purchased the American Stock Exchange. At the time Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, which was technically overseeing AMEX regulation.
Then in 1999 when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, major violations of federal securities laws at the AMEX were exposed in a seminal article, "Scandal On Wall Street," on the front page of Business Week and it was noted that Schettino had not been disciplined four years after he had violated federal securities laws. Schettino subsequently dropped his lawsuit against me.
Schapiro did nothing, but covered up these crimes. And what has all this have to do with Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi King? Madoff, like Schettino, had also produced fictitious trading records; falsified trades; and. stolen money.
Where was Schapiro, the nominal overseer of Madoff?
Now she is to become Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission?
(Schapiro did not return a phone message seeking comment; her aide said she was meeting with President Elect Obama in Chicago). ""
Source of Post
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=5221
Question: Mary Shapiro KNOWS of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. and is very aware according to what I have read.. about the implications to Shareholders that will be Billions upon Billions per Company in my Opinion. So when the SEC and Mary Shapiro Says she did not have prior Knowledge on the iViewit Scandal and all the Major Law Firms and Tech Companies involved.. ...
You Savvy Internet Investigators
will KNOW that she most Certainly DID...
How Come our Great Country is paying no attention to what seems in the above article to be decades of indescretions leading to Billions upon Billions and the Shareholders, Investors Seem to be the Ones to Take the Heat.. and Not Only is Mary Shapiro NEVER held Accountable, She is Constantly put back into some authoritative position that allows for the Same Over Looking of Tips - Not Looking into Facts and Creating or Shall I say ALLOWING huges Liabilities to Innocent Investors and Shareholders... ???
posted By
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
.... Got a Tip .. Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Investigative Blogger
"" [The Financial Meltdown]
President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Mary Schapiro as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission may go down as his worst appointment.
Schapiro, in her capacity as President of NASD Regulation and later CEO of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), was directly responsible for ensuring that Bernie Madoff's firm, BLM Securities, obeyed federal securities laws.
Schapiro in her capacity as Commissioner and acting-Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and later as President of NASD Regulation, has covered up more violations of federal securities law than Madoff has violated.
And yes, Bernie Madoff pulled off his scam when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation and Chairperson of FINRA, which regulates NASD!
Schapiro never investigated Madoff, probably because Madoff was a powerful individual, a former Chairman of NASD.
I’m privy to this information because I was a trader on Wall Street many years ago. Beginning in 1991 I had written to Steven Lister, Senior Vice President of Compliance at the American Stock Exchange (AMEX).
I requested that, as a former member of the American Stock Exchange, I be granted access to my records.
The American Stock Exchange never replied.
Whenever I saw Lister, I asked him when he would grant me access to my records, Lister would simply state: "No."
Little background. Members of the board of AMEX had told other members that I had been evicted from AMEX for refusing to pass through a metal detector; in reality I had exposed the fact that another member of the Board had been apprehended with an unregistered pistol after he went through metal detectors at AMEX. I wanted to see whether the false information about me was in my AMEX files.
On July 26, 1993, I wrote to Mary Schapiro and requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission order the American Stock Exchange to permit me access to my files after Lister again refused to grant me access to my records. Of course this is a violation of federal securities laws, but that did not matter to Schapiro.
And SEC attorney, GayLa D. Sessoms, in a letter dated August 23, 1993 claimed "the Commission does not have the authority to compel the AMEX to produce records to you."
Schapiro knew that AMEX was a hotbed of illegal activity by the Italian Mafia-but Schapiro always looked to greener pastures.
I did not expect this lack of support from Schapiro. After all, I executed orders for Frost & Sullivan, a trading firm, on the floor of the AMEX.
When the inside trading scandal in Motel 6 was exposed –a foreign company was planning to bid on Motel 6, which was a nationwide chain of budget motels, but the information leaked and Frost & Sullivan traded illegally on it— I was investigated by the SEC.
I was the only individual who was connected to the three firms involved in this insider trading scandal that did not trade on Motel 6 insider information and thereby profit illegally. I was also the only individual who possessed knowledge of the extent of the insider trading in Motel 6 who was not subpoenaed by the SEC.
Why? Because according to Joseph Greenwald, a trader with another firm, who pleaded guilty to insider trading in Motel 6, James Breeden, at the time Chairman of the SEC, and Mary Schapiro, who was then an SEC Commissioner, had ordered the SEC to limit the scope of the investigation. The intent was to protect senior members of the AMEX and Bear Stearns who had knowledge of the Motel 6 insider information.
On September 13, 1993 I met with Assistant United States Attorney Frances Fragos (who later, as Frances Fragos-Townsend was to become George W. Bush’s Homeland Security adviser) at 1 Saint Andrew Plaza, in Manhattan, to discuss the Italian Mafia's penetration of the AMEX; the insider trading scandal in Motel 6; payoffs to AMEX Compliance Attorneys by the Italian Mafia; payoffs by the Italian Mafia to members of the Board of the American Stock Exchange; the theft of $500,000 by a vice president of the AMEX; the stock fraud at a company named PNF; involvement of members of the Board of the AMEX in the stock fraud at PNF; and, a host of other crimes.
I had first approached the FBI to expose these crimes and the agency then arranged for me to meet with Frances Fragos.
(When I showed Fragos the letter from Sessoms, she told me that Sessoms had lied and that in fact the SEC had the authority to order the AMEX to grant me access to my records.
I was convinced that the SEC and AMEX knew that once I obtained my records, I could have forced investigations that would have exposed other major crimes; yet I needed my records as a launching point).
Of course the SEC had powers over the AMEX.
For example, in 1977 the AMEX gave mild disciplinary sanctions against about 20 members for posting fictitious options trades.
The SEC overruled the AMEX disciplinary actions and suspended the 20 or so members of the AMEX involved in this fraud, including future members of the Board of the AMEX, such as William Silver, Louis Miceli, and Robert VanCaneghan..
In 1995 when Schapiro was a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a huge illegal trading scandal erupted at the AMEX.
Pat Schettino, a rogue trader and managing director of Spear Leeds and Kellogg, falsified trades; marked options positions; produced fictitious trading records; stole money from AMEX members; violated the net capital rule (the type of offense for which Ivan Boesky later went to prison); and, even entered trades at fictitious prices.
When I wrote numerous letters to the SEC and members of the Board of the AMEX about Schettino's illegal trading, he hired Eric Levine, an attorney at Proskauer Rose and sued me for defamation. The SEC did nothing; even after I had written to the SEC, including Schapiro, about Schettino's massive illegal trading.
By taking no action, the SEC countenanced Schettino's actions against me. The AMEX delayed investigating Schettino for years. Two attorneys for the AMEX, Steven Lister and Phil Axelrod, who were supposed to be investigating Schettino even taunted me about Schettino's defamation lawsuit and told me that they hoped that I would lose.
In 1998 NASD purchased the American Stock Exchange. At the time Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, which was technically overseeing AMEX regulation.
Then in 1999 when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, major violations of federal securities laws at the AMEX were exposed in a seminal article, "Scandal On Wall Street," on the front page of Business Week and it was noted that Schettino had not been disciplined four years after he had violated federal securities laws. Schettino subsequently dropped his lawsuit against me.
Schapiro did nothing, but covered up these crimes. And what has all this have to do with Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi King? Madoff, like Schettino, had also produced fictitious trading records; falsified trades; and. stolen money.
Where was Schapiro, the nominal overseer of Madoff?
Now she is to become Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission?
(Schapiro did not return a phone message seeking comment; her aide said she was meeting with President Elect Obama in Chicago). ""
Source of Post
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=5221
Question: Mary Shapiro KNOWS of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. and is very aware according to what I have read.. about the implications to Shareholders that will be Billions upon Billions per Company in my Opinion. So when the SEC and Mary Shapiro Says she did not have prior Knowledge on the iViewit Scandal and all the Major Law Firms and Tech Companies involved.. ...
You Savvy Internet Investigators
will KNOW that she most Certainly DID...
How Come our Great Country is paying no attention to what seems in the above article to be decades of indescretions leading to Billions upon Billions and the Shareholders, Investors Seem to be the Ones to Take the Heat.. and Not Only is Mary Shapiro NEVER held Accountable, She is Constantly put back into some authoritative position that allows for the Same Over Looking of Tips - Not Looking into Facts and Creating or Shall I say ALLOWING huges Liabilities to Innocent Investors and Shareholders... ???
posted By
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
.... Got a Tip .. Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Investigative Blogger
Eliot I. Bernstein, James F. Armstrong, Jude Rosario, Zakirul Shirajee, Patti Daniels, Jeffrey Friedstein and Matthew Mink are the True Iviewit .
" The true inventors were Eliot I. Bernstein, James F. Armstrong, Jude Rosario, Zakirul Shirajee, Patti Daniels, Jeffrey Friedstein and Matthew Mink. The first spark of invention was in finding a solution for imaging pixelation upon zoom in a low bandwidth environment and utilizing a low resolution file. "
More on the iViewit Trillion Dollar STOLEN Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - www.DeniedPatent.com
-- - http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/
More on the iViewit Trillion Dollar STOLEN Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - www.DeniedPatent.com
-- - http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/
Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson in New York September 2009
"" « September 24, 2009 Public Hearing: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner
Prepared Statement of Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit to New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Regarding Trillion Dollar Iviewit Federal Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Larnder, IBM, Intel, SGI, Lockheed and More »
September 24, 2009 Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson NY: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Intel, IBM, SGI & Lockheed Martin.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Senator John Sampson Chairman
SUBJECT: The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PURPOSE: This hearing will review the mission, procedures and level of public satisfaction with the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts as well as the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Monday June 8, 2009
NYC
250 Broadway
NY NY
10 A.M.
19th Floor
ORAL TESTIMONY BY INVITATION ONLY
Witness List for Judiciary Hearing 9/24/09
The Judicial & Attorney Disciplinary Process in the State of New York
1. Richard Kuse of New City, NY
2. Victor Kovner of the Fund for Modem Courts
3. Douglas Higbee of Mamaroneck, NY
4. Judith Herskowitz of Miami Beach, FL
5. Peter Gonzalez of Troy, NY
6. Andrea Wilkinson of Rensselaer, NY
7. Maria Gkanios of Mahopac, NY
8. Dominic Lieto of Mahopac, NY
9. Regina Felton Esq of Brooklyn, NY
10. Kathryn Malarkey of Purchase, NY
11. Nora Renzuli, Esq. of Staten Island, NY
12. Stephanie Klein of Long Beach, NY
13. Ike Aruti of Rosedale, NY
14. Terrence Finnan of Keene, NY
15. Gizella Weisshaus, NY
16. Eliot I. Bernstein of Boca Raton, FL
17. Suzanne McCormick & Patrick Handley of NY
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the entity that is legally responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of attorneys in New York State. The Appellate Division Departments have created grievance committees that are charged with the investigation of complaints against attorneys.
Within the First Judicial Department the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division investigates complaints against attorneys.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by the State Constitution and is charged with investigating complaints against Judges and Justices of the Unified Court System.
According to the 2009 Report of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, there were 1,923 complaints filed in 2008. Yet of these complaints only 262 were investigated and of those, 173 were dismissed.
This hearing will examine the processes and procedures that are followed by the various agencies charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules and regulations that must be followed by the Judiciary and the Bar in the State of New York. It will also evaluate public satisfaction with the disciplinary process. ""
Full Article, Source of Post and VIDEO Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159
posted HERE by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Prepared Statement of Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit to New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Regarding Trillion Dollar Iviewit Federal Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Larnder, IBM, Intel, SGI, Lockheed and More »
September 24, 2009 Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson NY: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Intel, IBM, SGI & Lockheed Martin.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Senator John Sampson Chairman
SUBJECT: The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PURPOSE: This hearing will review the mission, procedures and level of public satisfaction with the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts as well as the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Monday June 8, 2009
NYC
250 Broadway
NY NY
10 A.M.
19th Floor
ORAL TESTIMONY BY INVITATION ONLY
Witness List for Judiciary Hearing 9/24/09
The Judicial & Attorney Disciplinary Process in the State of New York
1. Richard Kuse of New City, NY
2. Victor Kovner of the Fund for Modem Courts
3. Douglas Higbee of Mamaroneck, NY
4. Judith Herskowitz of Miami Beach, FL
5. Peter Gonzalez of Troy, NY
6. Andrea Wilkinson of Rensselaer, NY
7. Maria Gkanios of Mahopac, NY
8. Dominic Lieto of Mahopac, NY
9. Regina Felton Esq of Brooklyn, NY
10. Kathryn Malarkey of Purchase, NY
11. Nora Renzuli, Esq. of Staten Island, NY
12. Stephanie Klein of Long Beach, NY
13. Ike Aruti of Rosedale, NY
14. Terrence Finnan of Keene, NY
15. Gizella Weisshaus, NY
16. Eliot I. Bernstein of Boca Raton, FL
17. Suzanne McCormick & Patrick Handley of NY
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the entity that is legally responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of attorneys in New York State. The Appellate Division Departments have created grievance committees that are charged with the investigation of complaints against attorneys.
Within the First Judicial Department the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division investigates complaints against attorneys.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by the State Constitution and is charged with investigating complaints against Judges and Justices of the Unified Court System.
According to the 2009 Report of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, there were 1,923 complaints filed in 2008. Yet of these complaints only 262 were investigated and of those, 173 were dismissed.
This hearing will examine the processes and procedures that are followed by the various agencies charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules and regulations that must be followed by the Judiciary and the Bar in the State of New York. It will also evaluate public satisfaction with the disciplinary process. ""
Full Article, Source of Post and VIDEO Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159
posted HERE by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
NY TIMES REPORTS 80M SUIT CLAIMING WHITEWASHING IVIEWIT COMPLAINTS V. PROSKAUER & NY SUPREME COURT
"NY TIMES & LAW JOURNAL REPORT $80M SUIT CLAIMING WHITEWASHING OF IVIEWIT COMPLAINTS v. PROSKAUER, STEVEN KRANE PAST NYSBA PRES, FOLEY LARDNER & NY COURT OFFICERS, REVEALED BY ATTY INSIDE WHISTLEBLOWER
For_Immediate_Release:
United States of America (Press Release) November 23, 2007 -- In an explosive $80M federal lawsuit @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CCA-2-amended.pdf a staff attorney at the New York Supreme Court claims officials whitewashed Iviewit complaints against Proskauer Rose, Steven C. Krane, Esq. (former NYSBA Pres & clerk to Chief Judge Judith Kaye) & other high ranking NY Supreme Court officers.
The inside whistleblower also claims she was physically assaulted & then terminated to keep Iviewit claims of fraud on the US Patent Office and other government agencies buried.
The New York Law Journal
@ http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1193648632218 and The New York Times @ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/nyregion/01suit.html?ref=nyregion reported on a federal lawsuit claiming high ranking members on the New York Supreme Court, purposely and with intent to cover-up for other high ranking court officials, caused the whitewashing of complaints against attorneys and senior court officials who committed hosts of state, federal, and international crimes against a multiplicity of governmental agencies, and in fact, threatened and coerced Plaintiff Anderson, including wrongfully terminating her and physical assault, for voicing concern that there was irrefutable evidence of wrongdoings by the attorneys and court officials to cover up the crimes committed against the United States.
In the lawsuit http://www.iviewit.tv/CCA-2-amended.pdf filed on October 27, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed as Christine C. Anderson v. The State of New York, et. al. S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2007 the Plaintiff affirmatively claims support by the Iviewit matters of patent sabotage, FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, intellectual property theft , and an attempted murder perpetrated by, among others, the once respected Proskauer Rose LLP and its members Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane, (former New York State Bar President, former clerk to Chief Judge Judith Kaye), Chief Judge Judith Kaye and her late Proskauer partner husband Stephen Kaye, Christopher C. Wheeler, Foley & Lardner LLP led by its former Chairman and former Republican National Committee, Chief Counsel, Michael C. Grebe and others.
In that lawsuit, the Plaintiff factually alleges that:
Upon information and belief, defendants also state that the timing of the, Plaintiff’s abrupt firing was connected to the newly circulated revelations concerning Cahill's status as an individually named defendant in a lawsuit entitled In the Matter of Complaints Against Attorneys and Counselors-At-Law; Kenneth Rubenstein - Docket 2003.0531; Raymond Joao-Docket 2003.0532; Steven C. Krane- Docket 2004.1883; Thomas J. Cahill- Special Inquiry #2004.1122; and the Law Firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP; filed by Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se and P. Stephen Lamont Both Individually and On Behalf of Shareholders of: Iviewit et. al., Petitioners. [Iviewit’s]…petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Department.
The Iviewit Petition @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2007%2008%20Cahill%20Motion%20Supreme%20court%20new%20york%20FINAL%20BOOKMAR.pdf for immediate investigation was later granted by the First Department Justices in a unanimous decision to begin immediate investigation for the Appearance of Impropriety and Conflict of Interest in Unpublished Orders:
• M3198 - Steven C. Krane & Proskauer Rose @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2008%2011%20new%20york%20first%20department%20orders%20investigation%20Krane%20Rubenstein%20Joao.pdf
• M2820 Kenneth Rubenstein & Proskauer Rose
• M3212 Raymond A. Joao and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel and,
• Thomas J. Cahill – Special Inquiry #2004.1122 - Cahill was transferred for Special Inquiry and Investigation to Martin Gold per First Dept rules.
Original First Dept Complaints:
• Kenneth Rubenstein – Docket 2003.0531 First Department,
• Raymond Joao – Docket 2003.0532 First Department,
• Steven C. Krane – Docket 2004.1883 First Department,
• the Law Firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP and,
• the Law Firm of Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel
Additionally, and similar to the NYLJ and the NYT, as reported in an article aptly titled "Justice Department Widens 'Patentgate' Probe Buried by Ethics Chief Thomas J. Cahill" @ http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html the Iviewit inquiries have reached the highest levels of New York & Washington political circles and into many judicial chambers as well.
The original inquiries revealed that New York ethics Chief Counsel Thomas J. Cahill of the First Department Disciplinary Committee whitewashed investigations, which recently led to his abrupt departure.
In a letter dated July 16, 2007, H. Marshall Jarret’s office, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, announced from its Washington, D.C. headquarters that it was expanding its investigation into a bizarrely stalled FBI and US Attorney investigation, initiated in 2001, that involves the theft from Iviewit of nearly 30 patents, trademarks and other intellectual properties, with an estimated value of a trillion dollars.
The OPR investigation was sparked by a request from the DOJ – OIG, Inspector General Glenn Fine’s Office whom is also conducting an ongoing investigation. The patent pending applications and other IP have been suspended by the Commissioner of Patents pending the outcome of ongoing state, federal and international investigations.
The probe reaches some of New York's most prominent politicians and judges, and has already proven to be a stunning embarrassment to the State's ethics watchdog committees.
As a backdrop to the technologies in question, Mr. Bernstein's inventions, the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems, are the backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across almost all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints -- the "Holy Grail" inventions of the digital imaging and video worlds that enable low bandwidth video on the Internet and mobile phones.
As previously reported, the U.S. Senate and U.S. House Judiciary Committees (Representative John Dingell, Chair of the Energy & Commerce Committee forwarded the Iviewit matters to John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee for investigation) have known about the Iviewit investigation since about September of 2006. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office is also championing the Iviewit cause.
The story is globally known in technical and intellectual property circles, with ongoing investigations at international patent offices such as the European Patent Office as well.
Full information available @ www.iviewit.tv , including full pertinent documentation and images of the car bombing attempt on inventor Bernstein’s life.
Eliot I. Bernstein & P. Stephen Lamont
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
www.iviewit.tv
iviewit@iviewit.tv
...
About Iviewit Technologies, Inc. and Iviewit Holdings, Inc.,
Iviewit’s innovative patent pending imaging and video technologies deliver to millions of people around the world digital video and images every day.
Founded in 1998 by Eliot I. Bernstein, Jude Rosario and Zakirul Shirajeee, Iviewit’s core backbone technologies deliver video and images to top web properties in all major global markets enhancing the overall web experience for users. For more information, visit www.iviewit.tv .
Currently the Iviewit patent pending applications have been suspended by the USPTO pending investigations by state, federal and international authorities concerning the theft of the IP by patent attorneys charged with filing them.
....
Visit our website: http://iviewit.tv
Eliot Bernstein & P. Stephen Lamont"
Source of this Post
http://iviewit.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx
posted here by Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
at www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal Cox
For_Immediate_Release:
United States of America (Press Release) November 23, 2007 -- In an explosive $80M federal lawsuit @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CCA-2-amended.pdf a staff attorney at the New York Supreme Court claims officials whitewashed Iviewit complaints against Proskauer Rose, Steven C. Krane, Esq. (former NYSBA Pres & clerk to Chief Judge Judith Kaye) & other high ranking NY Supreme Court officers.
The inside whistleblower also claims she was physically assaulted & then terminated to keep Iviewit claims of fraud on the US Patent Office and other government agencies buried.
The New York Law Journal
@ http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1193648632218 and The New York Times @ http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/nyregion/01suit.html?ref=nyregion reported on a federal lawsuit claiming high ranking members on the New York Supreme Court, purposely and with intent to cover-up for other high ranking court officials, caused the whitewashing of complaints against attorneys and senior court officials who committed hosts of state, federal, and international crimes against a multiplicity of governmental agencies, and in fact, threatened and coerced Plaintiff Anderson, including wrongfully terminating her and physical assault, for voicing concern that there was irrefutable evidence of wrongdoings by the attorneys and court officials to cover up the crimes committed against the United States.
In the lawsuit http://www.iviewit.tv/CCA-2-amended.pdf filed on October 27, 2007 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed as Christine C. Anderson v. The State of New York, et. al. S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2007 the Plaintiff affirmatively claims support by the Iviewit matters of patent sabotage, FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, intellectual property theft , and an attempted murder perpetrated by, among others, the once respected Proskauer Rose LLP and its members Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane, (former New York State Bar President, former clerk to Chief Judge Judith Kaye), Chief Judge Judith Kaye and her late Proskauer partner husband Stephen Kaye, Christopher C. Wheeler, Foley & Lardner LLP led by its former Chairman and former Republican National Committee, Chief Counsel, Michael C. Grebe and others.
In that lawsuit, the Plaintiff factually alleges that:
Upon information and belief, defendants also state that the timing of the, Plaintiff’s abrupt firing was connected to the newly circulated revelations concerning Cahill's status as an individually named defendant in a lawsuit entitled In the Matter of Complaints Against Attorneys and Counselors-At-Law; Kenneth Rubenstein - Docket 2003.0531; Raymond Joao-Docket 2003.0532; Steven C. Krane- Docket 2004.1883; Thomas J. Cahill- Special Inquiry #2004.1122; and the Law Firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP; filed by Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se and P. Stephen Lamont Both Individually and On Behalf of Shareholders of: Iviewit et. al., Petitioners. [Iviewit’s]…petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Department.
The Iviewit Petition @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2007%2008%20Cahill%20Motion%20Supreme%20court%20new%20york%20FINAL%20BOOKMAR.pdf for immediate investigation was later granted by the First Department Justices in a unanimous decision to begin immediate investigation for the Appearance of Impropriety and Conflict of Interest in Unpublished Orders:
• M3198 - Steven C. Krane & Proskauer Rose @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2008%2011%20new%20york%20first%20department%20orders%20investigation%20Krane%20Rubenstein%20Joao.pdf
• M2820 Kenneth Rubenstein & Proskauer Rose
• M3212 Raymond A. Joao and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel and,
• Thomas J. Cahill – Special Inquiry #2004.1122 - Cahill was transferred for Special Inquiry and Investigation to Martin Gold per First Dept rules.
Original First Dept Complaints:
• Kenneth Rubenstein – Docket 2003.0531 First Department,
• Raymond Joao – Docket 2003.0532 First Department,
• Steven C. Krane – Docket 2004.1883 First Department,
• the Law Firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP and,
• the Law Firm of Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel
Additionally, and similar to the NYLJ and the NYT, as reported in an article aptly titled "Justice Department Widens 'Patentgate' Probe Buried by Ethics Chief Thomas J. Cahill" @ http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html the Iviewit inquiries have reached the highest levels of New York & Washington political circles and into many judicial chambers as well.
The original inquiries revealed that New York ethics Chief Counsel Thomas J. Cahill of the First Department Disciplinary Committee whitewashed investigations, which recently led to his abrupt departure.
In a letter dated July 16, 2007, H. Marshall Jarret’s office, the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsibility, announced from its Washington, D.C. headquarters that it was expanding its investigation into a bizarrely stalled FBI and US Attorney investigation, initiated in 2001, that involves the theft from Iviewit of nearly 30 patents, trademarks and other intellectual properties, with an estimated value of a trillion dollars.
The OPR investigation was sparked by a request from the DOJ – OIG, Inspector General Glenn Fine’s Office whom is also conducting an ongoing investigation. The patent pending applications and other IP have been suspended by the Commissioner of Patents pending the outcome of ongoing state, federal and international investigations.
The probe reaches some of New York's most prominent politicians and judges, and has already proven to be a stunning embarrassment to the State's ethics watchdog committees.
As a backdrop to the technologies in question, Mr. Bernstein's inventions, the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems, are the backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across almost all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints -- the "Holy Grail" inventions of the digital imaging and video worlds that enable low bandwidth video on the Internet and mobile phones.
As previously reported, the U.S. Senate and U.S. House Judiciary Committees (Representative John Dingell, Chair of the Energy & Commerce Committee forwarded the Iviewit matters to John Conyers, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee for investigation) have known about the Iviewit investigation since about September of 2006. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office is also championing the Iviewit cause.
The story is globally known in technical and intellectual property circles, with ongoing investigations at international patent offices such as the European Patent Office as well.
Full information available @ www.iviewit.tv , including full pertinent documentation and images of the car bombing attempt on inventor Bernstein’s life.
Eliot I. Bernstein & P. Stephen Lamont
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
www.iviewit.tv
iviewit@iviewit.tv
...
About Iviewit Technologies, Inc. and Iviewit Holdings, Inc.,
Iviewit’s innovative patent pending imaging and video technologies deliver to millions of people around the world digital video and images every day.
Founded in 1998 by Eliot I. Bernstein, Jude Rosario and Zakirul Shirajeee, Iviewit’s core backbone technologies deliver video and images to top web properties in all major global markets enhancing the overall web experience for users. For more information, visit www.iviewit.tv .
Currently the Iviewit patent pending applications have been suspended by the USPTO pending investigations by state, federal and international authorities concerning the theft of the IP by patent attorneys charged with filing them.
....
Visit our website: http://iviewit.tv
Eliot Bernstein & P. Stephen Lamont"
Source of this Post
http://iviewit.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx
posted here by Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
at www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal Cox
Was P. Stephen Lamont Really The CEO of the Iviewit Technologies Company? Is Stephen Lamont working AGAINST the Iviewit Inventors and Shareholders?
In the Quest to see if P. Stephen Lamont is working for or against the Iviewit Shareholders and the Iviewit Inventors. I have to ask and research such questions.
Also did Stephen Lamont Really go to Columbia, Does P. Stephen Lamont have a Law Degree? Has Stephen Lamont Being deliberate sabatoging the Iviewit Inventors, Company and Shareholders from the Begining... ???
Who in the Trillion Dollar Patent Heist is Stephen Lamont actually working for, with or against? Where is the FBI, the SEC, the FTC, and the Department of Justice. This is Trillions of Dollars and Shareholders Stand to Lose Billions... where is the United States Justice System??
Questions SOON to be answered.. if you have any VALID information on this, please email Crystal L. Cox - Investigative Blogger at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com
www.Iviewit.TV and http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/
Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
Also did Stephen Lamont Really go to Columbia, Does P. Stephen Lamont have a Law Degree? Has Stephen Lamont Being deliberate sabatoging the Iviewit Inventors, Company and Shareholders from the Begining... ???
Who in the Trillion Dollar Patent Heist is Stephen Lamont actually working for, with or against? Where is the FBI, the SEC, the FTC, and the Department of Justice. This is Trillions of Dollars and Shareholders Stand to Lose Billions... where is the United States Justice System??
Questions SOON to be answered.. if you have any VALID information on this, please email Crystal L. Cox - Investigative Blogger at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com
www.Iviewit.TV and http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/
Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
Florida Bar Under Fire for Lack of Regulation in Robert Allen Stanford and Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, Kenneth Marvin defendant in Iviewit...
""Florida Bar Under Fire for Lack of Regulation in Robert Allen Stanford and Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, Kenneth Marvin defendant in Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Lawsuit
December 29th, 2009
Before reading the article below, one wonders if the Florida Bar has reported their status and liability in the Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Federal Lawsuit to State Auditors???
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?id=30938&AuthorID=23453
David Arthur Walters
Contempt for The Florida Bar and Supreme Court
12/23/2009 9:26:00 AM
by David Arthur Walters
________________________________________
Commentary: Allen Sanford and Scott Rothstein should have been nailed in Florida long ago.
The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court of which the Bar is part and parcel deserve an utterance of contempt for their failure to regulate powerful, politically connected law firms until damage to the public is irreparably done.
For example, Greenberg Traurig, some of whose lawyers were implicated in the Hamilton Bank and Allen Stanford scandals, the very firm whose name became infamous in the Abramoff political scandal.
But Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, the erstwhile South Florida legal powerhouse led by the now notorious swindler Scott Rothstein, is currently the most glaring example. Rothstein and his colleagues ran a Ponzi-scheme that bilked investors of over $1 billion under the mantle of the firm, using the firm’s letterhead and mingling some of the ill-gotten proceeds with the firm’s accounts while doling out millions of dollars for the benefit of his fine friend Governor Charlie Crist, former Senator Mel Martinez, Senator John McCain, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and the like.
The Rothstein firm hired former judges and a mayor, and Rothstein bought police protection from top law enforcement officials. Ironically, he sat on a Bar committee responsible for disciplining unethical conduct of lawyers.
Governor Crist appointed him to a judiciary nominating committee just after Rothstein contributed funds to his campaign and the Republican Party.
The Rothstein firm doled out huge bonuses to attorneys on the condition they contribute to designated candidates, a fact that could subject them to charges of fraud, money laundering and tax evasion.
Furthermore, Rothstein and his law associates created at least 30 shell corporations to launder money, shuffle acquired assets and conceal the identities of the corporate directors and officers involved in the illicit scheme.
Berger Singerman, the law firm handling Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler’s bankruptcy, filed a bankruptcy document stated that the books and records of Rothstein’s firm “are in disarray, inadequate and do not contain the typical records that one would expect to be maintained in the normal course of business.”
Frauds and other misconduct would undoubtedly be detected and Florida’s legal profession as well as the Bar spared a great deal of embarrassment and dishonor if the books of law firms were regularly examined by independent certified fraud examiners.
But Kenneth L. Marvin, Staff Counsel, Director of Lawyer Regulation for the Florida Bar did not respond to my suggestion to do just that, nor was he interested in law firms as such. Unless he was prevaricating, the Bar’s information system is wholly inadequate to the task of producing any information about the relationship of lawyers to their firms.
“We do not keep records pertaining to law firms, since law firms do not have a license to practice law,”
Marvin stated in on October 16, 2009 email, in response to my formal request for records appertaining to the involvement of the lawyers of the powerful, politically connected firm of Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has reportedly represented the Florida Bar.
In any event, a careful reader could infer from the widely published reports on the Allen Stanford scandal that Greenberg Traurig lawyers colluded with public regulators and lawyers for the State of Florida in setting up the specious trust that enabled Stanford to use his Miami office to launder most of the money he bilked from investors or laundered for others.
Banking lawyers were astonished by the trust arrangement, as it appeared contrary to banking law not to mention ethical standards - information as to whether or not any of them filed complaints or inquiries with the Bar as required by its Rules cannot be obtained from the Bar due to the policies that allows it to conceal information from immediate public view and destroy it in short order.
“Mr. Walters, I don’t understand why you are so distrustful of the Bar. I had never heard of the Stanford Trust until I read your writings about it,” Marvin stated. “I do not know who you originally spoke to, but we do keep our records under the accused attorney’s name and not the subject matter.
If you had asked me about the Stanford Trust, I would have claimed no knowledge, but if you had asked about Carlos Loumiet, I would have recognized that name and recalled that there were newspaper articles about him.”
Apparently neither Marvin nor anyone else at the Bar had carefully read the series of Miami Herald articles about the involvement of private and public lawyers in the forging of the Stanford Trust.
If a member of the public in want of a lawyer were referred to Carlos E. Loumiet, one of the principal lawyers accused in both the Hamilton Bank fraud and the Stanford Trust fraud, and if he checks the Bar’s website for public information, he will discover that, as of December 22, 2009, Loumiet is a member of the Bar in good standing and that there is no disciplinary history on him for the last 10 years.
Indeed, a recent press report described him as “a distinguished member of the Florida Bar.” In fact, a file was opened and recently closed on Loumiet in re the Hamilton Bank fraud, and another file has been opened on him in re the Stanford fraud. Both files are hidden from immediate public view so that the public will be kept in the dark about the investigations unless it makes a public records request about a specific attorney - in one instance, Bar staff denied the existence of a file until this writer insisted that a defense lawyer had publicly declared that disciplinary action was pending. If the Bar in its discretion decides not to pursue a matter or decides that discipline is unwarranted, the file is destroyed hence the Bar is left unaccountable for its actions.
“Mr. Marvin,” I responded to Marvin’s email, “Thank you very much for your revelation that The Florida Bar does not keep records appertaining to law firms. I believe I may fairly conclude from your statement that the Bar’s information system must be inadequate and in need of considerable improvement.
As it stands, the Bar staff apparently have no way, for example, of producing statistics to demonstrate that there is little or no merit in the widespread belief that the Bar favors large, powerful (i.e. politically connected) firms such as Greenberg Traurig, wherein it is alleged that the individual consciences are too easily submerged.
I would think that you and other persons charged with the regulation of the profession would find the organizations of practitioners as interesting as the individuals involved in them, and would make sure that information was kept on that aspect for several good reasons.”
Mr. Marvin also responded on behalf of the Executive Director of the Florida Bar and the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court to my constructive suggestions for the improvement of information transparency. My letter included the following suggestion:
“I respectfully suggest that a list of Pending Complaints and Open Disciplinary Cases be maintained on the website and regularly updated until disposed of. Thereafter the initial and dispositive information would be maintained for 10 years on the respective website-available files of the attorneys involved.
By ‘Pending Complaints’ I mean each and every complaint received, and by ‘Open Disciplinary Cases’ I mean each and every complaint that Bar counsel decides to pursue. The information available would of course include the name of the attorney, the date and nature of the complaint and the current status of the investigation.
If a case is not opened or an investigation not conducted on the complaint, the disposition then posted to the attorney’s website-available file would state the specific reason for not investigating the complaint. When an open case is closed, the specific reason for disposition would likewise be posted to the attorney’s website-available file.
As for the confidentiality of open files, Rule 3-7.1 (e) allows for the disclosure of the status of specific cases under investigation. The specification under my suggestion would be any and all open files.”
“Please understand that I do not wish to argue with you and I do not set policy,” replied Mr. Marvin on October 27, 2009. Since he was responding for the Executive Director and Chief Justice, it appears that any constructive suggestions sent to the high authorities of the Florida integrated bar would fall on deaf ears since none of the above nor any delegates below “set policy.”
But Marvin informed me that suggestions could be made to a special citizen council controlled by the Bar; but then the Bar would have discretion over what measures if any to adopt.
The arrogance of a public institution that does not have to answer to the public and is a law unto itself is exceedingly dangerous to that public, and is deserving of its contempt.
To return to the Rothstein scandal, there is little doubt that several members of the legal community and more certainly colleagues at the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler itself knew about the scam or should have known that something was seriously amiss. Indeed, rumors were running rampant in legal circles as to the source of Rothstein’s sudden wealth and the enormous political influence of his legal powerhouse.
Lawyers had good reason to wonder where all the money was coming from so fast, for it would have been impossible for the law practice itself to generate such a fabulous fortune virtually overnight. U.S. Senator George LeMieux, a lawyer, former campaign manager and then chief of staff to Governor Crist (who are both now calling for an end to corruption in Florida), did not bother to look the gift horse in the mouth at the time of receipt.
He has now admitted that he did not understand where all the money was coming from, pleading that, “You don’t look at someone who’s generous and just criticize.”
Perhaps Gary Phillips at Rothstein’s previous firm, Phillips Eiseinger Koss Rosenfeldt and Rothstein, could have nipped the pathological liar in the bud some time ago, as Phillips and his partners got rid of Rothstein after discovering he had lied to a client about filing a complaint and a motion for injunctive relief; but Phillips decided not to report Rothstein to the Bar because he took the Bar’s job into his own hands and erroneously determined that lying to clients is not a legitimate grievance against a lawyer.
Bar rules require attorneys to blow the whistle on such misconduct; therefore I forwarded the information on Phillips to Marvin and asked whether the Bar would inquire into the matter. A smooth-talking staff lawyer called me on December 21, 2009 and said there was no file open on Phillips but one might be opened “at the discretion of the Bar.” If a citizen filed a sworn complaint against Phillips, I was informed, he or she would then have access to documents appertaining to the proceedings if any. The complainant could then reveal the information obtained - some states make such a revelation a contempt of court.
I pointed out that citizens might not like to go on record against attorneys for fear of retaliation. I recommended that an independent ombudsman be created to file such complaints based on information obtained from the press and interested members of the public.
The staff lawyer did not seem interested; why should he be when the integrated bar does not have to answer to the public for anything at all?
Of course the Bar would be far more effective if lawyers would only blow the whistle on one another as the Rules of the Bar do require, but a code of silence imposed from the top down of the Bar integrated with the Supreme Court renders them reluctant to do so, despite such ethical mouthing from the Bar as that of its ethical counsel, Elizabeth Tarbert, who recently effused that, even though lawyers may not have actual evidence of something amiss, they cannot bury their heads in the sand if knowledge of wrongdoing might be inferred from circumstances. Seldom are such inferences filed with the Bar, and the ones that Bar counsel and the Good Old Boys on the grievance committees give a free pass to are never brought to the public’s attention and all the evidence is destroyed a year later so that the Bar may not be brought to task for its prejudices, preferences, and negligence.
In any case, what humble lawyer would scruple to draw damning inferences in the form of complaints against the high power that provide not only his privilege to practice his profession but determine his relative success in courts? He might then find himself the defendant in disbarment proceedings presided over by the Good Old Boys he has begged askance of.
Indeed, disbarred attorney Mark A. Adams believes he was permanently disbarred from practicing law in Florida because he blew the whistle on members of a powerful, politically connected law firm, Battaglia Ross Dicus & Wein, P.A. He has in fact made numerous public statements alleging corruption of the Florida judiciary and the Attorney General’s office, and has accused specific attorneys of criminal conduct. He did file a complaint with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
The FDLE forwarded the file (FDLE File 73-5818-134-131) to Susan Austin at the Florida Bar on June 25, 2004. According to Adams, the Florida Bar, instead of pursuing the matter on its own initiative, as it is allowed to do by its own Rules, simply dismissed it on a technicality, that the complaint was not sworn by a complainant. The Florida Bar has been accused by watchdogs of routinely rat-holing numerous grievances against attorneys without inquiry; however that might be, evidence supporting Adam’s claim, that his complaints were ignored, is not retrievable from the Bar because of its record-destruction policy, a Supreme Court policy that creates an appearance of impropriety as it obviously would allow its strong “arm”, the Florida Bar, to behave irresponsibly since its deeds are rendered inscrutable.
I asked Adams if he had some concrete evidence of a quid pro quo between the Battaglia firm lawyers and the judicial officers regarding his allegations of criminal conduct.
“Battaglia and his clients were able to get a number of judges to ignore black letter law and the facts to deprive my former client of the pay that was due to him, to make my former client pay Battaglia’s client, and to enter a judgment against me and use a baseless criminal charge to attempt to extort money from me.
That’s explains the benefits to Battaglia. Regarding the evidence of the benefit to the judges, why would judges ignore the law and the facts and expose themselves to liability unless they were receiving a benefit?”
That is a good question, one that should have been thoroughly investigated by the Florida Bar. We are left to speculate, that the judges could be ignorant, or they could believe they are above the law for some reason or another, say, answering a higher call, or they could be getting definite benefits - favors, payoffs et cetera. Concrete evidence of the latter would of course definitely interest Federal investigators who are not subject to the powerful machinations of the integrated state bar and bench.
In Rothstein’s case almost everyone knew or suspected that something was seriously amiss, but nobody was willing to draw derogatory inferences until federal authorities swooped in to end the colossal fraud. And then not a single competent member of the legal circle was surprised, for the fall of Rothstein & Firm was not a matter of if but of when, so obvious had the likelihood of fraud become.
Now the general public has some reason to assume, from all the evidence brought forward and the allegations being made, that the integrated bar of Florida is a legally constituted racketeering organization. Therefore an historical recapitulation of the monstrosity called the “integrated bar” is in order:
During the Great Depression, Americans were once again sorely plagued by hordes of lawyers, wherefore they were apt to raise once again the revolutionary cry, “Kill the lawyers! Burn down the courthouses!”
The high courts of several states, in a supreme exercise of judicial vanity, circled wagons and gazed into their self-flattering mirrors, each reflecting the mutual opinion that supreme courts possess an inherent and absolute power to regulate the practice of law in their respective states without interference from the legislative or executive branches of government.
A strong jurisprudential argument was made that only an organization of lawyers dominated by a supreme court are competent to regulate lawyers given the complexity of the law and its practice and the native tendency of litigious lawyers to independent and relativistic thinking. Therefore all lawyers who want to practice should be integrated into a state supreme court system so that the court might adopt and enforce standard scruples thus effectively curb the abuses people were suffering at the hands of unscrupulous lawyers - Plato’s Socrates might argue that lawyers are unscrupulous sophists by virtue of their trade.
In Florida, the “integrated bar” concept was embraced and eventually enshrined in the state constitution by way of amendment. But not all states bought the integrated bar movement - independent-minded lawyers were naturally opposed to paying dues and being beholden for their livelihood to a ruling hierarchy of their own disparaged kind. Naturally, there are many opposing arguments to an integrated bar.
The absolute integration of bench and bar would belie the very independence from political influence that the judiciary is wont to brag about as its chief virtue when claiming that it protects people from legislative politics. An integrated bar would allow the same forces that rule lawyer-dominated legislatures to rule the judiciary as well, with impunity and without debate from an opposition.
Politics is the distribution of power, and the integrated bar, having arrogated to itself the sole power to regulate the most powerful profession pursuant to the prejudices of the dominating political power of its members, would become a virtually unregulated power.
There could be no genuine “integrity” in such an integrated bar, no virtue except traditional loyalty to one’s own kind or else. There could be no real balance of powers here. Surely an absolutely independent integrated bar would tend to the absolute corruption of every state in which it is institutionalized. Such an institution would deserve the unmitigated contempt of a democratic people if only the people fully understood its nature.
That understanding has not been advanced by the so-called fourth branch of government, the press. A well seasoned investigative reporter with the McClatchy newspaper organization informed this commentator that integrated bar organizations routinely ignore the transgressions of powerful law firms while diligently pressing complaints against small practitioners, who are easily intimidated by the prospect of losing their livelihood.
This, in effect, keeps the rank-and-file in line with the ruling political power. We seldom or never see a critical report from the mainstream media addressing the Bar’s favoritism and negligence, which appears to rise to a fraud on the public. Instead, the public is fed pabulum, a steady diet of press releases praising the Bar’s good works, much of it well deserved, and an occasional press release notifying the public that a few small fry have been disciplined. Once in awhile a big fish is fried by the Bar, after he has been caught by law enforcement and convicted.
The so-called fourth branch of government, the press, ignores the crucial, political point, obscured by the gospel, as it were, or at least the true perspective is never published. After all, notwithstanding the public’s low albeit envious regard for lawyers as a class, it is difficult to elucidate such an obscured subject as the “integrated bar” so that a clamor might be raised against its inherent conflict of interest and organizational hypocrisy.
Furthermore, since the Bar integrated with the Supreme Court is in effect an arm or organ of the Court, since it is thus a law unto itself lorded over by its presiding power, nothing short of a clamor to kill lawyers and burn down courthouses could cause it to mitigate its arrogance and effect the radical reform needed, the disintegration of the integrated bar. Finally, the press is not wont to alienate the hand that feeds it with choice information and free-speech rulings.
Yet disintegration of the integrated bar is still possible, as is evidenced by England’s Legal Services Act of 2007, which mandated the end of the legal profession’s self-regulation and separated its regulation from its self-interested representative or political function. The Legal Services Board was appointed on September 1, 2008 pursuant to the Act, and it will be the single independent oversight regulator of legal services in England.
The Board will supervise all licensing authorities and oversee lawyer regulation. It is appointed entirely by the government. Most of the appointees are non-lawyers chosen for their regulatory and other public affairs experience, and some are consumer advocates. An Office of Legal Complaints will be established and monitored by the Board, completely independent of the profession, and will deal with consumer complaints according to an ombudsman scheme. The Complaints Commissioner must be a non-lawyer.
Much more can and should be said on this subject. The Florida’s integrated bar does deserve a great deal of credit for its many good deeds, but until significant and radical reform of the regulatory function is obtained, its pollution by political factions will create at least the appearance of impropriety, and its negligence alone deserves the public utterance of contempt.""
December 29th, 2009
Before reading the article below, one wonders if the Florida Bar has reported their status and liability in the Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Federal Lawsuit to State Auditors???
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewnews.asp?id=30938&AuthorID=23453
David Arthur Walters
Contempt for The Florida Bar and Supreme Court
12/23/2009 9:26:00 AM
by David Arthur Walters
________________________________________
Commentary: Allen Sanford and Scott Rothstein should have been nailed in Florida long ago.
The Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court of which the Bar is part and parcel deserve an utterance of contempt for their failure to regulate powerful, politically connected law firms until damage to the public is irreparably done.
For example, Greenberg Traurig, some of whose lawyers were implicated in the Hamilton Bank and Allen Stanford scandals, the very firm whose name became infamous in the Abramoff political scandal.
But Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, the erstwhile South Florida legal powerhouse led by the now notorious swindler Scott Rothstein, is currently the most glaring example. Rothstein and his colleagues ran a Ponzi-scheme that bilked investors of over $1 billion under the mantle of the firm, using the firm’s letterhead and mingling some of the ill-gotten proceeds with the firm’s accounts while doling out millions of dollars for the benefit of his fine friend Governor Charlie Crist, former Senator Mel Martinez, Senator John McCain, presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, and the like.
The Rothstein firm hired former judges and a mayor, and Rothstein bought police protection from top law enforcement officials. Ironically, he sat on a Bar committee responsible for disciplining unethical conduct of lawyers.
Governor Crist appointed him to a judiciary nominating committee just after Rothstein contributed funds to his campaign and the Republican Party.
The Rothstein firm doled out huge bonuses to attorneys on the condition they contribute to designated candidates, a fact that could subject them to charges of fraud, money laundering and tax evasion.
Furthermore, Rothstein and his law associates created at least 30 shell corporations to launder money, shuffle acquired assets and conceal the identities of the corporate directors and officers involved in the illicit scheme.
Berger Singerman, the law firm handling Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler’s bankruptcy, filed a bankruptcy document stated that the books and records of Rothstein’s firm “are in disarray, inadequate and do not contain the typical records that one would expect to be maintained in the normal course of business.”
Frauds and other misconduct would undoubtedly be detected and Florida’s legal profession as well as the Bar spared a great deal of embarrassment and dishonor if the books of law firms were regularly examined by independent certified fraud examiners.
But Kenneth L. Marvin, Staff Counsel, Director of Lawyer Regulation for the Florida Bar did not respond to my suggestion to do just that, nor was he interested in law firms as such. Unless he was prevaricating, the Bar’s information system is wholly inadequate to the task of producing any information about the relationship of lawyers to their firms.
“We do not keep records pertaining to law firms, since law firms do not have a license to practice law,”
Marvin stated in on October 16, 2009 email, in response to my formal request for records appertaining to the involvement of the lawyers of the powerful, politically connected firm of Greenberg Traurig, a firm that has reportedly represented the Florida Bar.
In any event, a careful reader could infer from the widely published reports on the Allen Stanford scandal that Greenberg Traurig lawyers colluded with public regulators and lawyers for the State of Florida in setting up the specious trust that enabled Stanford to use his Miami office to launder most of the money he bilked from investors or laundered for others.
Banking lawyers were astonished by the trust arrangement, as it appeared contrary to banking law not to mention ethical standards - information as to whether or not any of them filed complaints or inquiries with the Bar as required by its Rules cannot be obtained from the Bar due to the policies that allows it to conceal information from immediate public view and destroy it in short order.
“Mr. Walters, I don’t understand why you are so distrustful of the Bar. I had never heard of the Stanford Trust until I read your writings about it,” Marvin stated. “I do not know who you originally spoke to, but we do keep our records under the accused attorney’s name and not the subject matter.
If you had asked me about the Stanford Trust, I would have claimed no knowledge, but if you had asked about Carlos Loumiet, I would have recognized that name and recalled that there were newspaper articles about him.”
Apparently neither Marvin nor anyone else at the Bar had carefully read the series of Miami Herald articles about the involvement of private and public lawyers in the forging of the Stanford Trust.
If a member of the public in want of a lawyer were referred to Carlos E. Loumiet, one of the principal lawyers accused in both the Hamilton Bank fraud and the Stanford Trust fraud, and if he checks the Bar’s website for public information, he will discover that, as of December 22, 2009, Loumiet is a member of the Bar in good standing and that there is no disciplinary history on him for the last 10 years.
Indeed, a recent press report described him as “a distinguished member of the Florida Bar.” In fact, a file was opened and recently closed on Loumiet in re the Hamilton Bank fraud, and another file has been opened on him in re the Stanford fraud. Both files are hidden from immediate public view so that the public will be kept in the dark about the investigations unless it makes a public records request about a specific attorney - in one instance, Bar staff denied the existence of a file until this writer insisted that a defense lawyer had publicly declared that disciplinary action was pending. If the Bar in its discretion decides not to pursue a matter or decides that discipline is unwarranted, the file is destroyed hence the Bar is left unaccountable for its actions.
“Mr. Marvin,” I responded to Marvin’s email, “Thank you very much for your revelation that The Florida Bar does not keep records appertaining to law firms. I believe I may fairly conclude from your statement that the Bar’s information system must be inadequate and in need of considerable improvement.
As it stands, the Bar staff apparently have no way, for example, of producing statistics to demonstrate that there is little or no merit in the widespread belief that the Bar favors large, powerful (i.e. politically connected) firms such as Greenberg Traurig, wherein it is alleged that the individual consciences are too easily submerged.
I would think that you and other persons charged with the regulation of the profession would find the organizations of practitioners as interesting as the individuals involved in them, and would make sure that information was kept on that aspect for several good reasons.”
Mr. Marvin also responded on behalf of the Executive Director of the Florida Bar and the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court to my constructive suggestions for the improvement of information transparency. My letter included the following suggestion:
“I respectfully suggest that a list of Pending Complaints and Open Disciplinary Cases be maintained on the website and regularly updated until disposed of. Thereafter the initial and dispositive information would be maintained for 10 years on the respective website-available files of the attorneys involved.
By ‘Pending Complaints’ I mean each and every complaint received, and by ‘Open Disciplinary Cases’ I mean each and every complaint that Bar counsel decides to pursue. The information available would of course include the name of the attorney, the date and nature of the complaint and the current status of the investigation.
If a case is not opened or an investigation not conducted on the complaint, the disposition then posted to the attorney’s website-available file would state the specific reason for not investigating the complaint. When an open case is closed, the specific reason for disposition would likewise be posted to the attorney’s website-available file.
As for the confidentiality of open files, Rule 3-7.1 (e) allows for the disclosure of the status of specific cases under investigation. The specification under my suggestion would be any and all open files.”
“Please understand that I do not wish to argue with you and I do not set policy,” replied Mr. Marvin on October 27, 2009. Since he was responding for the Executive Director and Chief Justice, it appears that any constructive suggestions sent to the high authorities of the Florida integrated bar would fall on deaf ears since none of the above nor any delegates below “set policy.”
But Marvin informed me that suggestions could be made to a special citizen council controlled by the Bar; but then the Bar would have discretion over what measures if any to adopt.
The arrogance of a public institution that does not have to answer to the public and is a law unto itself is exceedingly dangerous to that public, and is deserving of its contempt.
To return to the Rothstein scandal, there is little doubt that several members of the legal community and more certainly colleagues at the Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler itself knew about the scam or should have known that something was seriously amiss. Indeed, rumors were running rampant in legal circles as to the source of Rothstein’s sudden wealth and the enormous political influence of his legal powerhouse.
Lawyers had good reason to wonder where all the money was coming from so fast, for it would have been impossible for the law practice itself to generate such a fabulous fortune virtually overnight. U.S. Senator George LeMieux, a lawyer, former campaign manager and then chief of staff to Governor Crist (who are both now calling for an end to corruption in Florida), did not bother to look the gift horse in the mouth at the time of receipt.
He has now admitted that he did not understand where all the money was coming from, pleading that, “You don’t look at someone who’s generous and just criticize.”
Perhaps Gary Phillips at Rothstein’s previous firm, Phillips Eiseinger Koss Rosenfeldt and Rothstein, could have nipped the pathological liar in the bud some time ago, as Phillips and his partners got rid of Rothstein after discovering he had lied to a client about filing a complaint and a motion for injunctive relief; but Phillips decided not to report Rothstein to the Bar because he took the Bar’s job into his own hands and erroneously determined that lying to clients is not a legitimate grievance against a lawyer.
Bar rules require attorneys to blow the whistle on such misconduct; therefore I forwarded the information on Phillips to Marvin and asked whether the Bar would inquire into the matter. A smooth-talking staff lawyer called me on December 21, 2009 and said there was no file open on Phillips but one might be opened “at the discretion of the Bar.” If a citizen filed a sworn complaint against Phillips, I was informed, he or she would then have access to documents appertaining to the proceedings if any. The complainant could then reveal the information obtained - some states make such a revelation a contempt of court.
I pointed out that citizens might not like to go on record against attorneys for fear of retaliation. I recommended that an independent ombudsman be created to file such complaints based on information obtained from the press and interested members of the public.
The staff lawyer did not seem interested; why should he be when the integrated bar does not have to answer to the public for anything at all?
Of course the Bar would be far more effective if lawyers would only blow the whistle on one another as the Rules of the Bar do require, but a code of silence imposed from the top down of the Bar integrated with the Supreme Court renders them reluctant to do so, despite such ethical mouthing from the Bar as that of its ethical counsel, Elizabeth Tarbert, who recently effused that, even though lawyers may not have actual evidence of something amiss, they cannot bury their heads in the sand if knowledge of wrongdoing might be inferred from circumstances. Seldom are such inferences filed with the Bar, and the ones that Bar counsel and the Good Old Boys on the grievance committees give a free pass to are never brought to the public’s attention and all the evidence is destroyed a year later so that the Bar may not be brought to task for its prejudices, preferences, and negligence.
In any case, what humble lawyer would scruple to draw damning inferences in the form of complaints against the high power that provide not only his privilege to practice his profession but determine his relative success in courts? He might then find himself the defendant in disbarment proceedings presided over by the Good Old Boys he has begged askance of.
Indeed, disbarred attorney Mark A. Adams believes he was permanently disbarred from practicing law in Florida because he blew the whistle on members of a powerful, politically connected law firm, Battaglia Ross Dicus & Wein, P.A. He has in fact made numerous public statements alleging corruption of the Florida judiciary and the Attorney General’s office, and has accused specific attorneys of criminal conduct. He did file a complaint with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
The FDLE forwarded the file (FDLE File 73-5818-134-131) to Susan Austin at the Florida Bar on June 25, 2004. According to Adams, the Florida Bar, instead of pursuing the matter on its own initiative, as it is allowed to do by its own Rules, simply dismissed it on a technicality, that the complaint was not sworn by a complainant. The Florida Bar has been accused by watchdogs of routinely rat-holing numerous grievances against attorneys without inquiry; however that might be, evidence supporting Adam’s claim, that his complaints were ignored, is not retrievable from the Bar because of its record-destruction policy, a Supreme Court policy that creates an appearance of impropriety as it obviously would allow its strong “arm”, the Florida Bar, to behave irresponsibly since its deeds are rendered inscrutable.
I asked Adams if he had some concrete evidence of a quid pro quo between the Battaglia firm lawyers and the judicial officers regarding his allegations of criminal conduct.
“Battaglia and his clients were able to get a number of judges to ignore black letter law and the facts to deprive my former client of the pay that was due to him, to make my former client pay Battaglia’s client, and to enter a judgment against me and use a baseless criminal charge to attempt to extort money from me.
That’s explains the benefits to Battaglia. Regarding the evidence of the benefit to the judges, why would judges ignore the law and the facts and expose themselves to liability unless they were receiving a benefit?”
That is a good question, one that should have been thoroughly investigated by the Florida Bar. We are left to speculate, that the judges could be ignorant, or they could believe they are above the law for some reason or another, say, answering a higher call, or they could be getting definite benefits - favors, payoffs et cetera. Concrete evidence of the latter would of course definitely interest Federal investigators who are not subject to the powerful machinations of the integrated state bar and bench.
In Rothstein’s case almost everyone knew or suspected that something was seriously amiss, but nobody was willing to draw derogatory inferences until federal authorities swooped in to end the colossal fraud. And then not a single competent member of the legal circle was surprised, for the fall of Rothstein & Firm was not a matter of if but of when, so obvious had the likelihood of fraud become.
Now the general public has some reason to assume, from all the evidence brought forward and the allegations being made, that the integrated bar of Florida is a legally constituted racketeering organization. Therefore an historical recapitulation of the monstrosity called the “integrated bar” is in order:
During the Great Depression, Americans were once again sorely plagued by hordes of lawyers, wherefore they were apt to raise once again the revolutionary cry, “Kill the lawyers! Burn down the courthouses!”
The high courts of several states, in a supreme exercise of judicial vanity, circled wagons and gazed into their self-flattering mirrors, each reflecting the mutual opinion that supreme courts possess an inherent and absolute power to regulate the practice of law in their respective states without interference from the legislative or executive branches of government.
A strong jurisprudential argument was made that only an organization of lawyers dominated by a supreme court are competent to regulate lawyers given the complexity of the law and its practice and the native tendency of litigious lawyers to independent and relativistic thinking. Therefore all lawyers who want to practice should be integrated into a state supreme court system so that the court might adopt and enforce standard scruples thus effectively curb the abuses people were suffering at the hands of unscrupulous lawyers - Plato’s Socrates might argue that lawyers are unscrupulous sophists by virtue of their trade.
In Florida, the “integrated bar” concept was embraced and eventually enshrined in the state constitution by way of amendment. But not all states bought the integrated bar movement - independent-minded lawyers were naturally opposed to paying dues and being beholden for their livelihood to a ruling hierarchy of their own disparaged kind. Naturally, there are many opposing arguments to an integrated bar.
The absolute integration of bench and bar would belie the very independence from political influence that the judiciary is wont to brag about as its chief virtue when claiming that it protects people from legislative politics. An integrated bar would allow the same forces that rule lawyer-dominated legislatures to rule the judiciary as well, with impunity and without debate from an opposition.
Politics is the distribution of power, and the integrated bar, having arrogated to itself the sole power to regulate the most powerful profession pursuant to the prejudices of the dominating political power of its members, would become a virtually unregulated power.
There could be no genuine “integrity” in such an integrated bar, no virtue except traditional loyalty to one’s own kind or else. There could be no real balance of powers here. Surely an absolutely independent integrated bar would tend to the absolute corruption of every state in which it is institutionalized. Such an institution would deserve the unmitigated contempt of a democratic people if only the people fully understood its nature.
That understanding has not been advanced by the so-called fourth branch of government, the press. A well seasoned investigative reporter with the McClatchy newspaper organization informed this commentator that integrated bar organizations routinely ignore the transgressions of powerful law firms while diligently pressing complaints against small practitioners, who are easily intimidated by the prospect of losing their livelihood.
This, in effect, keeps the rank-and-file in line with the ruling political power. We seldom or never see a critical report from the mainstream media addressing the Bar’s favoritism and negligence, which appears to rise to a fraud on the public. Instead, the public is fed pabulum, a steady diet of press releases praising the Bar’s good works, much of it well deserved, and an occasional press release notifying the public that a few small fry have been disciplined. Once in awhile a big fish is fried by the Bar, after he has been caught by law enforcement and convicted.
The so-called fourth branch of government, the press, ignores the crucial, political point, obscured by the gospel, as it were, or at least the true perspective is never published. After all, notwithstanding the public’s low albeit envious regard for lawyers as a class, it is difficult to elucidate such an obscured subject as the “integrated bar” so that a clamor might be raised against its inherent conflict of interest and organizational hypocrisy.
Furthermore, since the Bar integrated with the Supreme Court is in effect an arm or organ of the Court, since it is thus a law unto itself lorded over by its presiding power, nothing short of a clamor to kill lawyers and burn down courthouses could cause it to mitigate its arrogance and effect the radical reform needed, the disintegration of the integrated bar. Finally, the press is not wont to alienate the hand that feeds it with choice information and free-speech rulings.
Yet disintegration of the integrated bar is still possible, as is evidenced by England’s Legal Services Act of 2007, which mandated the end of the legal profession’s self-regulation and separated its regulation from its self-interested representative or political function. The Legal Services Board was appointed on September 1, 2008 pursuant to the Act, and it will be the single independent oversight regulator of legal services in England.
The Board will supervise all licensing authorities and oversee lawyer regulation. It is appointed entirely by the government. Most of the appointees are non-lawyers chosen for their regulatory and other public affairs experience, and some are consumer advocates. An Office of Legal Complaints will be established and monitored by the Board, completely independent of the profession, and will deal with consumer complaints according to an ombudsman scheme. The Complaints Commissioner must be a non-lawyer.
Much more can and should be said on this subject. The Florida’s integrated bar does deserve a great deal of credit for its many good deeds, but until significant and radical reform of the regulatory function is obtained, its pollution by political factions will create at least the appearance of impropriety, and its negligence alone deserves the public utterance of contempt.""
Source of post and More information Below
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=254
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Is Stephen Lamont, Former Alleged CEO, of Iviewit Conspiring with Foley and Lardner, the USPTO and other Players in the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case ???
It is Simply To Hard for Me to Wrap my Brain around the Actions of Stephen Lamont.
I Could not Figure out what possible Motive Stephen Lamont could have to Attempt to Discredit My Blog Postings and to Discredit Eliot Bernstein, when the Information on the Web from those two sources would only benefit P. Stephen Lamont up until he Threatened Me.
I just could not understand why Stephen Lamont would DEMAND that I remove Posts with his name, when those Posts were information from the www.Iviewit.TV Website that he links to in his every email, seemingly. and in which he seems to promote on the Internet with his my Space page and other online outlets of promotion.
So Why in the World would Stephen Lamont Threaten Me and Tell me to get My Affairs in order while I still can.. ?? and demand that I change my Blogs.. ?? when the Facts of the Story came from www.Iviewit.TV in which he promotes ?
It Simply Did not Make Sense to me.
In trying to figure out Why P. Stephen Lamont is Aggressively Demanding and Threatening me Now after 2 months of Blogging about the Iviewit Stolen Patent, and after the information has seemingly been on the Internet for over 8 years... I just had to Look Deeper...
I found myself needing to know more, and asking myself who is Stephen Lamont working with, why NOW?, what changed?
Did someone contact him and tell him to play big shot CEO and try and scare me with Demanding and Threatening Emails?
Did Stephen Lamont get orders from the USPTO - Foley and Lardner or some other Play in the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case?
P. Stephen Lamont is obviously a very smart man and surely saw me covering this story for around 2 months so far. Right ?
A guy who claims he wants to take over video.. blah .. blah .. blah.. online and the world this and that.. Surely he saw my Blogs, surely he looked into who and what I am about.. and Surely Stephen Lamont did not all of the Sudden wake up to my Righteous Stance on the Behalf of the Iviewit Shareholders, and the Iviewit Inventors ... On February 4th 2010, The day he was in Such a Stir about the email that Eliot Bernstein Sent out.
So Why did Stephen Lamont launch Demands and Threats on Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger - when I was and have been for two months... out to Defend HIM, the company he was supposedly CEO of, and him getting his rightful compensation for the Iviewit Shares in which he deserves, Along with the Inventors and other Shareholders of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. ????
It seems to me that Stephen Lamont is running a Bluff at me, possibly for Someone Else. It Seems to Me that P. Stephen Lamont wants this "Hillbilly Blogger" to believe he has powers that he does not have in a Company which he is no longer a part of other then being a Shareholder as many other Shareholders....
Kind of makes you wonder who P. Stephen Lamont is Really Working for... could it be one of the Billionaire Tech Companies - Billionaire Law Firms or ?
I mean if the Tech companies can afford Millions on Top of Millions - in Anti-Trust Violation fines every year, often every Quarter and the Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose can pay 1.5 million as a minimum a month in rent in once location and they are Global..
These Companies involved in this Trillion Dollar Stolen patent.. they have some serious money.. why not use some of it to try and Run a Bluff on some Woman.. by sending in someone with a big Fancy CEO Title of the Company your Talking about to discredit the very people you have been defending for 2 months so far.. Why not Send in someone I may think is the CEO - or somehow I may think is in Charge of the Iviewit Company?
Surely this will Shut me UP.. Right?
and If that don't Work well Stephen Lamont
will just Threat to End my Affairs...
So Again Why NOW.. ???
this information on my Investigative Blogs
is Public Knowledge, it is in the Courts, in the News,
and all over the www.Iviewit.TV website.. so why now?
Why Me?
Maybe, Possibly, Just speculating here .. maybe the Super Power Elite told P. Stephen Lamont that the Iviewit Inventors would NEVER get their rights and the SHAREHOLDERS will never get paid, however maybe he could get something out of the deal.. just speculating here..
Maybe .. just maybe someone offered P. Stephen Lamont Money to work on the other side and make it look like he was working for the best interest of the Iviewit Shareholders and the REAL Iviewit Inventors.
But anyone with a brain can see that currently Eliot Bernstein and P. Stephen Lamont are not quite on the same page, so why would I think that P. Stephen Lamont could speak for Eliot Bernstein or the Iviewit Technologies Company.
If P. Stephen Lamont is disputing the information I posted, and that in which contains his name then why does every email to every person he emails and his resume, and his My Space Page contain the www.Iviewit.TV website ... as if it is his site, he is proud of it and Well ... Gee.. Hmmm... I got the information from that site and linked to the source...
So What is Really Going on with P. Stephen Lamont? Who is P. Stephen Lamont Talking to and on Whose Authority his he Demanding anything of me?
Well I can Tell you that Right After I posted this post.
http://www.industrywhistleblower.com/
2010/02/p-stephen-lamont-friend-or-foe-of_05.html
A Story of Intrigue and Suspense Unfolded Before my Eyes.. and Not Just the Threats and Demands from P. Stephen Lamont, but also of Who he Told, where they were and What Connections and Fingerprints he left along the way..
Well .. My Stat Counter Told me a Story .. that I feel I must Share..
I feel from My Own Personal Experience in Analyzing my Stats over the Years, and in my Opinion that once P. Stephen Lamont Seen the Above Post... he then Contacted the USPTO, Foley and Lardner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Duval & Stachenfeld, Steven C. Becker and
"Crystal L. Cox" Lamont
Well Click Here and Read the Story...
posted by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
More information on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent
at www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.Iviewit.TV
Lamont Iviewit
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal Cox
I Could not Figure out what possible Motive Stephen Lamont could have to Attempt to Discredit My Blog Postings and to Discredit Eliot Bernstein, when the Information on the Web from those two sources would only benefit P. Stephen Lamont up until he Threatened Me.
I just could not understand why Stephen Lamont would DEMAND that I remove Posts with his name, when those Posts were information from the www.Iviewit.TV Website that he links to in his every email, seemingly. and in which he seems to promote on the Internet with his my Space page and other online outlets of promotion.
So Why in the World would Stephen Lamont Threaten Me and Tell me to get My Affairs in order while I still can.. ?? and demand that I change my Blogs.. ?? when the Facts of the Story came from www.Iviewit.TV in which he promotes ?
It Simply Did not Make Sense to me.
In trying to figure out Why P. Stephen Lamont is Aggressively Demanding and Threatening me Now after 2 months of Blogging about the Iviewit Stolen Patent, and after the information has seemingly been on the Internet for over 8 years... I just had to Look Deeper...
I found myself needing to know more, and asking myself who is Stephen Lamont working with, why NOW?, what changed?
Did someone contact him and tell him to play big shot CEO and try and scare me with Demanding and Threatening Emails?
Did Stephen Lamont get orders from the USPTO - Foley and Lardner or some other Play in the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case?
P. Stephen Lamont is obviously a very smart man and surely saw me covering this story for around 2 months so far. Right ?
A guy who claims he wants to take over video.. blah .. blah .. blah.. online and the world this and that.. Surely he saw my Blogs, surely he looked into who and what I am about.. and Surely Stephen Lamont did not all of the Sudden wake up to my Righteous Stance on the Behalf of the Iviewit Shareholders, and the Iviewit Inventors ... On February 4th 2010, The day he was in Such a Stir about the email that Eliot Bernstein Sent out.
So Why did Stephen Lamont launch Demands and Threats on Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger - when I was and have been for two months... out to Defend HIM, the company he was supposedly CEO of, and him getting his rightful compensation for the Iviewit Shares in which he deserves, Along with the Inventors and other Shareholders of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. ????
It seems to me that Stephen Lamont is running a Bluff at me, possibly for Someone Else. It Seems to Me that P. Stephen Lamont wants this "Hillbilly Blogger" to believe he has powers that he does not have in a Company which he is no longer a part of other then being a Shareholder as many other Shareholders....
Kind of makes you wonder who P. Stephen Lamont is Really Working for... could it be one of the Billionaire Tech Companies - Billionaire Law Firms or ?
I mean if the Tech companies can afford Millions on Top of Millions - in Anti-Trust Violation fines every year, often every Quarter and the Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose can pay 1.5 million as a minimum a month in rent in once location and they are Global..
These Companies involved in this Trillion Dollar Stolen patent.. they have some serious money.. why not use some of it to try and Run a Bluff on some Woman.. by sending in someone with a big Fancy CEO Title of the Company your Talking about to discredit the very people you have been defending for 2 months so far.. Why not Send in someone I may think is the CEO - or somehow I may think is in Charge of the Iviewit Company?
Surely this will Shut me UP.. Right?
and If that don't Work well Stephen Lamont
will just Threat to End my Affairs...
So Again Why NOW.. ???
this information on my Investigative Blogs
is Public Knowledge, it is in the Courts, in the News,
and all over the www.Iviewit.TV website.. so why now?
Why Me?
Maybe, Possibly, Just speculating here .. maybe the Super Power Elite told P. Stephen Lamont that the Iviewit Inventors would NEVER get their rights and the SHAREHOLDERS will never get paid, however maybe he could get something out of the deal.. just speculating here..
Maybe .. just maybe someone offered P. Stephen Lamont Money to work on the other side and make it look like he was working for the best interest of the Iviewit Shareholders and the REAL Iviewit Inventors.
But anyone with a brain can see that currently Eliot Bernstein and P. Stephen Lamont are not quite on the same page, so why would I think that P. Stephen Lamont could speak for Eliot Bernstein or the Iviewit Technologies Company.
If P. Stephen Lamont is disputing the information I posted, and that in which contains his name then why does every email to every person he emails and his resume, and his My Space Page contain the www.Iviewit.TV website ... as if it is his site, he is proud of it and Well ... Gee.. Hmmm... I got the information from that site and linked to the source...
So What is Really Going on with P. Stephen Lamont? Who is P. Stephen Lamont Talking to and on Whose Authority his he Demanding anything of me?
Well I can Tell you that Right After I posted this post.
http://www.industrywhistleblower.com/
2010/02/p-stephen-lamont-friend-or-foe-of_05.html
A Story of Intrigue and Suspense Unfolded Before my Eyes.. and Not Just the Threats and Demands from P. Stephen Lamont, but also of Who he Told, where they were and What Connections and Fingerprints he left along the way..
Well .. My Stat Counter Told me a Story .. that I feel I must Share..
I feel from My Own Personal Experience in Analyzing my Stats over the Years, and in my Opinion that once P. Stephen Lamont Seen the Above Post... he then Contacted the USPTO, Foley and Lardner, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Duval & Stachenfeld, Steven C. Becker and
"Crystal L. Cox" Lamont
Well Click Here and Read the Story...
posted by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
More information on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent
at www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.Iviewit.TV
Lamont Iviewit
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal Cox
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Did the Iviewit Stolen Patent Have Anything to Do with the Enron Fiasco? and How Was Proskauer Rose Involved?
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)