Shocking Turn - Former Iviewit Technologies CEO,P. Stephen Lamont Tells Investigative Blogger - Whistleblower- Crystal L. Cox to Get Affairs in Order.

The Iviewit Stolen Patent Case Involves some of the Wealthiest Tech Companies in the World such as Intel. Corp, IBM, Sony and other major media companies such as Warner Bros. and Time Warner Inc., and AOL, SGI, MPEG LA ... and many more.

the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case involves Major, Big Money Law Firms connected to the Wealthiest Corporations in the World Such as Foley and Lardner LLP, Proskuaer Rose LLP, Greenberg Traurig, and more ....

Also in the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case We have Major CEO's, High Powered General Counsel's of Major Corporations, HUGE Medial Relations and PR companies and well the Biggest of the Big in Finance, News, Investments, Tech Companies, Politics and Law Firms.

None whom have emailed or Threatened me
in any way thus far into my Iviewit Stolen Patent Writings.
Blog

The Players in this Stolen Patent Case have Political Connections, Connections in the Defense Department, Homeland Security, the Bradley Foundation, the Bush Administration and Well they have the most money and most power in the Entire World and NONE of them have emailed me, sent me a Cease and Desist, Called my Home
or Threatened me in any way.

So you can Imagine my Complete Surprise when an Iviewit Insider Called my Home, left no message and sent me an email that I deem as a Death Threat.

It may not seem that way to you but it sure feels that way to me.
iviewit

P. Stephen Lamont told me basically to get my Affairs in Order and other talk about emails I have no idea what he is talking about.
Stephen Lamont Emails ME

I have posted all Correspondence from P. Stephen Lamont to me, Crystal L. Cox ~ Industry Whistleblower on this Blog and several other of my Industry Whistle Blower sites.

Up until a few days ago I thought that P. Stephen Lamont was on the side of getting the Shareholders their rightful money and getting the Inventors the Rights to their Patent, another words ... Up Until a Few Days ago I thought P. Stephen Lamont was on the
Right Side of the Law, and the Right Side of the Moral Compass.

However, Now I am seriously confused as to what
P. Stephen Lamont's motive's are.
iviewit

You can plainly see from this site and my other writings on the iViewit Stolen Patent case, that I am writing to simply to expose the facts, the court documents and related information to get this Shocking Story of Court Corruption, Attorney Favoritism, US Patent Fraud, and Corruption in the US Court System ... told .. as well as to stand up for the little guy and not little guy like you may thinking.. a Case of Millionaires, Investors and Inventors Vs. Billionaires, Political and Financial Elite and the Courts and Attorneys that Keep them In Business....

the Iviewit company invested Millions upon Millions, as did the SBA and Related banks such as Wachovia, as well as investors like Ellen Degeneres and tons more who are iviewit Shareholders denied of their rights, their money seemingly Stolen by a Corrupt Patent Office, Court Corruption, and Attorneys Covering Up Each others Lies and Illegal Behavoir.

So why would a Former CEO be causing such a Stir ?
And Why Now ?
iviewit patent case

Why would a FORMER CEO be trying to get me to stop writing about anything? It is not really his Current Concern is it? Other then Shareholder money which many other Shareholders hope they see some day.

Why would a Formor Iviewit Technologies CEO Demand that I include him in all correspondence on the iViewit Company and Include him on ANY and ALL correspondence with the Owner of the iViewit Company - and one of the Inventors of the iViewit Technology?

Does a Former CEO have a Right to Make such Requests?

Ok well here is Today's Email.. of Which It Sounds to Me Like I had Better Get My Affairs in Order While I still can, According to P. Stephen Lamont.

************
Crystal Cox Blogger
Stephen Lamont Phoned My Home Last Night
He Left No Message, Today He Sent me
This Threatening Email
from lamont

" Ms. Cox:

I understand you have transmitted an email, which I have not received.

As I indicate below, continue your investigation, and if you come up with even one incidence where I have caused harm to Iviewit shareholders in our quest to own the video and imaging world then we can begin a dialogue.

Until then, however, you have been put on notice to remove my name from your various blog sites, and I will expect you will govern your affairs accordingly, while you still have some affairs to govern, that is.

Best regards,

P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont; http://www.iviewit.tv/ "

I know many of you wonder Why don't I tell the FBI, however the FBI does not Care, I have told them of Criminal Activity before and they don't bother to respond, or look into it and seem to have local law in the area of the Crime simple make the Criminal Look like the Good Guy.
crystal l. cox
I can only suspect that the FBI themselves are controlled just as all the Other High Courts, Judges, Huge Law Firms, Patent Office, Supreme Court and others that are Keeping this Trillion Dollar Patent Theft a Secret from Shareholders, Investors and Refusing to Give the Inventors the Rights to what they invented, Though This Big Boys having been using the Technology for Years upon Years...
Crystal Cox Blog
In the email above from P. Stephen Lamont to Crystal L. Cox, The part about an email that I have Transmitted and he has not received, that is so cryptic and kind of funny - I have no idea what it means as I have sent tons of emails in which he has not received - for they were not to him. I have no idea what he is Talking About.
Crystal L Cox
He talks about my "investigation" what does that mean?
blog
I am pretty much an investigative journalist, I research and I post, I am not conducting some sort of Official "investigation" and again have no idea what P. Stephen Lamont is Getting At here.
Crystal L. Cox
In my opinion, from my research, I don't understand how P. Stephen Lamont thinks he is any part of owning the video and imaging world, he WAS a CEO, he is a Shareholder.. that's it.
crystal l cox
I mean if your hired on as a CEO does that mean you own, run and control a Company?
crystal cox
Can a Former CEO go Seemingly Rogue and initiate Legal Complaints, and make Demands on behalf of a Company he is no longer affiliated with other then owning shares?
Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
If so, then all the iViewit Shareholders would seemingly have that same right.
Stolen Patent
It just does not Make Sense.
Iviewit
P. Stephen Lamont Now Phoning me and Sending me Cryptic, Threatening Emails after 2 months of writing on the Iviewit Stolen Patent, well, I just don't understand it.
Crystal Cox
Surely a Smart man like P. Stephen Lamont
Seen My Sites before Feb. 4th.
Patent
SO What Changed, Why Now ?
Crystal L. Cox
If you have any information on the Motives of P. Stephen Lamont,
please email our Whistle blower Hot line at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Posted by Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger

More on the Iviewit Technology
Stolen Patent Case at www.DeniedPatent.com
and www.iViewit.TV

crystal l cox

CEO Lamont Interfaces With President of Microsoft TV

"..August 05, 2009 "


"CEO Lamont Interfaces With President of Microsoft TV
Category: Web, HTML, Tech

Enrique, "

"It has been a long, long time and I hope all is well with you and yours. We have watched the Google/On2 technologies deal with interest, and, as a counter, I would like to introduce you and Microsoft to Iviewit Technologies, Inc. where we believe we hold the patent pending rights to the: (i) backbone, enabling technology for the encoding and transmission of video across all networks and viewable on all display devices; and (ii) image overlay systems, the effective inventors of digital zoom. At your leisure, please look at our website (sans all the legal jargon and car images inserted by our passionate founder) and let me know what you think.

As a last word, the patent filings are in need of some repair and continuance, but you can see where we fit in video by the attached slide. Look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
175 King Street
Armonk, N.Y. 10504
Tel: 914-217-0038
Email: pstephen.lamont@verizon.net ; pstephen.lamont@att.blackberry.net
URL: www.linkedin.com/in/pstephenlamont; www.myspace.com/pstephenlamont ; www.iviewit.tv "

Source of the Above Quote
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=114167543&blogId=504031809

******
Question, Does P. Stephen Lamont have the "Authority" to email Microsoft on behalf of Iviewit Technologies ? Who is the "We" P. Stephen Lamont is Referring to? Up until an Email P. Stephen Lamont send me yesterday I thought he was was working on behalf of Iviewit, and for the best interest of the shareholders, but Emails Correspondence I have been Privileged to over the last couple of days Suggest Different.

More information on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at Eliot Bernstein's website www.Iviewit.TV or my Blog on the Fascinating Story of the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case at www.DeniedPatent.com

Crystal L. Cox
Whistleblower

This one is as of Sept. 09 P. Stephen Lamont acting as if he is still CEO of the Iviewit Company. Who Really has the RIGHT to act on Behalf of Iviewit

"CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention

CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention Category: Web, HTML, Tech
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.

........

P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038

By Overnight Mail (o), Facsimile (f) and Certified Delivery (c)

September 23, 2009

The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (o) The Hon. Preet Bharara (c)
Attorney General of the United States United States Attorney for
Office of the Attorney General District of New York
United States Department of Justice United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One St. Andrews Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 New York, New York 10007

Hon. William M. Welch II (c) The Hon. John L. Sampson (f)
Chief, Public Integrity Unit Chairman, New York State Senate
United States Department of Justice Judiciary Committee
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W 409 Legislative Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Albany, NY 12247


RE: Request for Federal Intervention into Allegations of Corruption and Appointment of Federal Monitor.

Gentlemen:

By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and related parties (“Iviewit”), and pursuant to my fiduciary duties, I respectfully request your offices to: (i) attend the New York State Senate’s Standing Committee on the Judiciary’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing concerning The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“1st DDC”), the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts (collectively, the “DDC’s”), and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“CJC”), where you will hear testimony related to the commission of Federal crimes by and between and the 1st DDC, the DCC’s, the CJC and aggrieved citizens of the State of New York; (ii) once you have digested such testimony, and by the body(ies) of appropriate jurisdiction, the eventual issuance of a temporary injunction and a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of New York from further administration of the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC and the insertion of a Federal monitor to administer such agencies in lieu of State administration; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate such allegations of the commission of Federal crimes and the eventual prosecution of same.

As a case in point, the following describes the experiences of Iviewit with the aforementioned New York State agencies:

I. Iviewit Technology

The series of events proximate to the instant circumstances herein surrounds the sabotage of the multimedia inventions of Iviewit and the further alleged cover-up of that patent sabotage by the many attorneys, public officers, and members of the judiciary within and outside of the State of New York.

To begin, I would like to make it clear that Iviewit is not referring to some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems (“IP”) are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the encoding and transmission of video and images across all 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 presently in use by cable MSO’s, satellite MSO’s, telco MSO’s, and terrestrial networks, among a host of others. On the imaging side, presently in use by all those hardware manufacturers of image and/or video capture devices and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Mars Rover images), Iviewit stakes the claim as the inventors of digital zoom.

II. ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE COMPLAINTS FILED

1st DDC

In or about February 2003, and in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to attorney misconduct complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel LLP (“MLG”) filed with the 1st DDC, that were mired in undisclosed conflicts, improprieties, and violations of public offices of the 1st DDC from the outset. The attorney discipline response of Rubenstein was authored by Steven C. Krane of Proskauer who, upon information and belief, held positions at the 1st DDC and other disciplinary agencies at the time of the response making his representation a conflict of interest and violation of public offices.

In or about June 2003, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Steven C. Krane (“Krane”) for the above referenced conflicts and improprieties in the response for Rubenstein that imparted same on the now merged Joao complaint.

In or about June 2004, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the 1st DDC, filed with the 1st DDC, Special Inquiry #2004.1122, as a result of Cahill’s knowing and willful false information supplied to Iviewit in an effort to protect Krane, that had since been stalled under the direction of persons unknown, and sat incommunicado in the offices of Special Counsel, Martin R. Gold, for investigation.

In or about June 2004, I was an individual movant in a Motion to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”), inter alia, to begin immediate investigation of complaints against the above referenced attorneys and counselors-at-law. Subsequently, the First Department Court granted the Motion and in an unpublished order it was determined to move the complaints of Rubenstein, Proskauer, Krane, MLG, and Joao to the Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“2nd DDC”) as a result of conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. After thorough review of the subject matter, the First Department Court ordered the immediate investigation of the complaints against each attorney involved – Rubenstein M2820, Joao M3212, and Krane M3198, while the First Department Court ordered the Cahill complaint for a Special Inquiry #2004.1122 by Gold.

2nd DDC

On or about October 2004, the 2nd DDC summarily dismissed the complaints against Rubenstein, Proskauer, MLG, Joao and Krane, failing to conduct the First Department Court’s ordered investigation. In a discussion with Diana Maxwell Kearse, Chief Counsel of the 2nd DDC, Kearse stated that she and the 2nd DDC are not subject to the jurisdiction of the First Department Court and therefore could do as they please, or words to that effect; Kearse factually defies the Orders of the First Department Court so as to preclude the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, and Krane.

DAMAGES SUFFERED

Were it not for Iviewit’s discovery of the conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in Krane’s response for Rubenstein and Proskauer, the attorneys would have received discipline by reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, where such discipline would have been positively reflected in a variety of complaints across domestic and international agencies, but particularly the Iviewit intellectual property investigation being conducted by Harry I. Moatz, the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Were it not for the stalling of the Rubenstein and Joao complaints at the 1st DDC, and the unpublished nature of the First Department Court’s order, the transfer to an equally conflicted 2nd DDC, and the dismissal of the Rubenstein, Proskauer, Joao, Meltzer and Krane complaints by the 2nd DDC in reckless disregard for the Order of the First Department Court, Iviewit shareholders would not have suffered the damages of:

Emotional distress; and
Loss of consortium with their families; and
On a personal note, lost savings in the amount of approximately One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000); and
Lost value of the equity interest in the capital stock in Iviewit Holdings, Inc. in an amount that can approach One Trillion Dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).

Consequently, considering the above set of circumstances, the state of affairs in New York will never right itself absent Federal intervention, and Iviewit again respectfully requests: (i) the attendance, by individuals at your discretion, at the New York State’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing; (ii) and once familiar with the state of affairs, the appointment of a Federal monitor to administer the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the commission of these Federal crimes.

Thank you for your attention to these matters, and Iviewit looks forward to your earliest replies.

Very truly yours,

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.

....By:
Chief Executive Officer

Reply to Address:

35 Locust Avenue
Rye, N.Y. 10580



Cc: The Hon. David A. Paterson (c)
New York State Governor
Office of the Governor of New York State
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III (c)
Deputy United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Public Corruption Unit
United States Department of Justice
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo (c)
New York State Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341

The Hon. Loretta Preska (c)
Chief U. S. District Judge
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312

The Hon. Luis A. Gonzales (c)
Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
27 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10010

The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr. (c)
Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004

Source of Above QUOTE
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=114167543&blogId=511391360
Lamont - Iviewit
More on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - Eliot Bernstein's Website or
www.DeniedPatent.com the Blog of Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox