SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and P. STEPHEN LAMONT
-against-
APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants.
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff, P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. moved this Court for an order reopening the above captioned case, Docket No. 07-Civ-11196 (SAS), based upon exceptional circumstances that ensued after the Court’s granting of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and its Opinion and Order of August 8, 2008 (“Order”). Respectively, Plaintiffs have been properly served with answers that oppose such Motion to Reopen by the Proskauer Defendants, the Foley Defendants, Raymond A. Joao Pro se, the Virginia Defendants, the Florida Bar Defendants, and the New York State Actors (collectively, “Reopen Oppositions”). Additionally Plaintiffs have been properly served with an answer by the State Actors that opposes the removal of the Office of the Attorney General from representation of the State Actors (“Disqualification Opposition”). The Meltzer Defendants did not answer Plaintiffs’ Motion.
In each and every instance, the Reopen Oppositions singularly point to Plaintiffs’ lack of standing to challenge attorney discipline complaints. Such a defense erroneously interprets Plaintiffs’ singular claim: it is not the disposition that Plaintiffs claim is a violation per se, but it is the method employed to reach that disposition that clearly and convincingly gives exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering, in violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (which this Court likened to Plaintiffs’ direct constitutional claims in its Order and Opinion) and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs claim that the State Actors committed all methods employed to sanctify and preserve the politically connected law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and its reckless member Defendant Kenneth Rubenstein and his accomplices Defendant Raymond A. Joao and the Meltzer Defendants to preserve and protect a profitable client, MPEG LA LLC. Respectfully, in skewing from the actual claim (method employed), this Court erroneously concluded Plaintiffs’ lack of standing in its Order, but made no mention of the methods employed to reach said racketeering dispositions.
The Reopen Oppositions make no mention, lest no defense of: After four and one half years of handling the Plaintiffs’ grievance complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Defendant Martin R. Gold suddenly reached a disposition exactly seven (7) business days after Plaintiffs filed their motion with the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”) requesting an order requiring the immediate investigation of Thomas J. Cahill (“Cahill”); and When after said disposition, Defendants Hon. Andrias and Hon Saxe sat on a panel in the First Department Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
These circumstances are exceptional instances in the pattern of racketeering and are direct violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 that continue along with, and of which no statute of limitations may belie, the seminal instances as follows: Deposition testimony will show evidence that dismissed Defendant Joseph Wigley stated “Mr. Cahill has taken the Rubenstein complaint away and is handling the complaint on his own,” or words to these effects. The handling of a grievance complaint by the Chief Counsel himself is quite inapposite to the testimony offered in Anderson v. The State of New York (S.D.N.Y. filed October 26, 2007). This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that in the filing of a response to a grievance complaint against Rubenstein by a referee, the late Steven C. Krane, where, the former Clerk of the First Department Court, dismissed Defendant Catherine O’Hagen Wolfe, stated “Steven Krane? Of course, he is a referee, and I have a meeting with him tonight along with a few others folks,” or words to these effects. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that the State Actors caused the merging of the Rubenstein complaint with the grievance complaint against Raymond A. Joao that was filed in another Disciplinary Department so as to impart a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in light of the Krane response. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. That in making no mention, lest no defense of these exceptional circumstances of 1 and 2 above, Plaintiffs maintain that skirting the issue and providing no defense, clearly and convincingly gives further exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering, in violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, all methods employed by the State Actors to sanctify and preserve the politically connected law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and its reckless member Defendant Kenneth Rubenstein and his accomplices Defendant Raymond A. Joao and the Meltzer Defendants to preserve and protect a profitable client, MPEG LA LLC.
Plaintiffs argue that, as to the Foley Defendants, the Virginia Defendants, and the Florida Bar Defendants, further deposition testimony will show evidence which will further define the who, what, where, when, and how of the allegations that sufficiently state claims which will become more fully evident, as to whether they acted in collusion with the State Actors in clearly and convincingly acting to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices and/or whether they contrived their own racketeering scheme for securing the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
18 U.S.C. § 1961 – Definitions
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) (B) section 1503 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to relating to obstruction of justice, section 1511 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement, and section 1952 defines a catch all as activities relating to racketeering.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4) defines “enterprise” that includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
Deposition testimony will show evidence from a one Wayne Smith, former intellectual property counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment, a unit of Time Warner, Inc. as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will further show evidence from a one Gregory B. Thagard, one of the principal inventors and proponents of the DVD6c Licensing Group as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will conclusively show evidence from the intellectual property department of Greenberg Traurig LLP (counsel to the Florida Bar Defendants herein), who conducted a full review of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property in or about Spring 2002 as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affects interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery1 to take place.
18 U.S.C. § 1964 – Civil Remedies
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) grants the district courts of the United States jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 by issuing appropriate orders, and by 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), Plaintiffs injured in their business and property by reason of a violation of section 1962 provides civil remedies by instituting the action prayed to reopen herein, including the recovery of threefold damages the Plaintiffs sustained and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 – Standing
Where 18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 provides that any civil action under §§ 1961 to 1965 by Plaintiffs’ may be instituted against Defendants in this Court or in any district in which such Plaintiffs reside.
That in making no mention, lest no defense, counsel to the State Actors do not plead the existence of an ethical barrier between different departments of the Attorney General’s office (“AG”) to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, in complete separation of such bilateral functions, but suffices to regurgitate this Court’s Order. Where no defense is pleaded, this Court must conclude that there is no existence of an ethical barrier between different departments of the Attorney General’s office to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, and must immediately disqualify the AG.
For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ respectfully request this Court to: (i) reopen the action and grant relief from the Court's August 8, 2008 Order; (ii) deny any Defendants’ request for leave to file a sur-reply; (iii) disqualify the AG’s office in representing the State Actors; and (iv) grant Plaintiffs leave to retain counsel and file an Amended Complaint within one hundred and eighty days (180).
Attorney for Plaintiffs, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580, Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By: P. Stephen Lamont
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all defendants by facsimile this 14nd day of November 2010. Defendants are served by facsimile as opposed to hand delivery to the Court for the sake of Pro se expediency.
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Joanna Smith/Gregg M. Mashberg Proskauer Rose LLP
Counsel for the Proskauer Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
Monica Connell, Esq., Office of the New York State Attorney General
Counsel for the New York State Defendants Facsimile: (212) 416-6075
Kent K. Anker, Esq., Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
Counsel for the Foley Larder LLP Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 373-7944
Raymond A. Joao, Pro se, c/o Fried & Epstein LLP
Counsel for Defendant Joao, Facsimile: (212) 268-3110
Stephen H. Hall, Office of the Virginia State Attorney General
Counsel for the Virginia Defendants, Facsimile: (804) 786-1991
Richard Howard, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone
Counsel for Meltzer Defendants, Facsimile: (516) 747-0653
Glenn T. Burhans/Bridget Smitha, Greenberg Traurig LLP
Counsel for Florida Bar Defendants, Facsimile: (850) 681-0207
ON BEHALF OF SHAREHOLDERS OF IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs,
-against-
APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, et al., Defendants.
DOCKET NO: 07Civ11196 (SAS)
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO REOPEN BASED ON
EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
On October 11, 2010, Plaintiff, P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. moved this Court for an order reopening the above captioned case, Docket No. 07-Civ-11196 (SAS), based upon exceptional circumstances that ensued after the Court’s granting of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and its Opinion and Order of August 8, 2008 (“Order”). Respectively, Plaintiffs have been properly served with answers that oppose such Motion to Reopen by the Proskauer Defendants, the Foley Defendants, Raymond A. Joao Pro se, the Virginia Defendants, the Florida Bar Defendants, and the New York State Actors (collectively, “Reopen Oppositions”). Additionally Plaintiffs have been properly served with an answer by the State Actors that opposes the removal of the Office of the Attorney General from representation of the State Actors (“Disqualification Opposition”). The Meltzer Defendants did not answer Plaintiffs’ Motion.
REOPEN OPPOSITIONS
The Reopen Oppositions make no mention, lest no defense of: After four and one half years of handling the Plaintiffs’ grievance complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Defendant Martin R. Gold suddenly reached a disposition exactly seven (7) business days after Plaintiffs filed their motion with the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”) requesting an order requiring the immediate investigation of Thomas J. Cahill (“Cahill”); and When after said disposition, Defendants Hon. Andrias and Hon Saxe sat on a panel in the First Department Court to deny Plaintiffs’ motion.
These circumstances are exceptional instances in the pattern of racketeering and are direct violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 that continue along with, and of which no statute of limitations may belie, the seminal instances as follows: Deposition testimony will show evidence that dismissed Defendant Joseph Wigley stated “Mr. Cahill has taken the Rubenstein complaint away and is handling the complaint on his own,” or words to these effects. The handling of a grievance complaint by the Chief Counsel himself is quite inapposite to the testimony offered in Anderson v. The State of New York (S.D.N.Y. filed October 26, 2007). This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that in the filing of a response to a grievance complaint against Rubenstein by a referee, the late Steven C. Krane, where, the former Clerk of the First Department Court, dismissed Defendant Catherine O’Hagen Wolfe, stated “Steven Krane? Of course, he is a referee, and I have a meeting with him tonight along with a few others folks,” or words to these effects. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
Deposition testimony will show evidence that the State Actors caused the merging of the Rubenstein complaint with the grievance complaint against Raymond A. Joao that was filed in another Disciplinary Department so as to impart a conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in light of the Krane response. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. That in making no mention, lest no defense of these exceptional circumstances of 1 and 2 above, Plaintiffs maintain that skirting the issue and providing no defense, clearly and convincingly gives further exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering, in violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, all methods employed by the State Actors to sanctify and preserve the politically connected law firm of Proskauer Rose LLP and its reckless member Defendant Kenneth Rubenstein and his accomplices Defendant Raymond A. Joao and the Meltzer Defendants to preserve and protect a profitable client, MPEG LA LLC.
Plaintiffs argue that, as to the Foley Defendants, the Virginia Defendants, and the Florida Bar Defendants, further deposition testimony will show evidence which will further define the who, what, where, when, and how of the allegations that sufficiently state claims which will become more fully evident, as to whether they acted in collusion with the State Actors in clearly and convincingly acting to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices and/or whether they contrived their own racketeering scheme for securing the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom. This Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.
STANDARDS OF PLEADING
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1) (B) section 1503 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to relating to obstruction of justice, section 1511 defines “racketeering” as activities relating to the obstruction of State or local law enforcement, and section 1952 defines a catch all as activities relating to racketeering.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4) defines “enterprise” that includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (5) defines “pattern of racketeering activity” as requiring at least two acts of racketeering activity, where the exceptional circumstances of Section I subsection (a) and (b) and the seminal circumstances of Section I (c), (d), and (e) meets Plaintiffs’ standard of pleading in obstruction of justice, obstruction of State or local enforcement, and the catch all of racketeering.
18 U.S.C. § 1962 – Prohibited Activities
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d) Defendants’ pattern of racketeering clearly and convincingly acted to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants. The Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices contrived their racketeering scheme to sabotage the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom from competing in, and affecting, interstate or foreign commerce for such technologies from the original encoding of video and images and downstream to display on any screen device by an end user.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a), (b), (c), and (d) Defendants’ pattern of racketeering clearly and convincingly acted to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants. The Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices contrived their racketeering scheme to sabotage the backbone, enabling video technology and the invention that stakes the claim as the inception of digital zoom from competing in, and affecting, interstate or foreign commerce for such technologies from the original encoding of video and images and downstream to display on any screen device by an end user.
Deposition testimony will show evidence from a one Wayne Smith, former intellectual property counsel of Warner Bros. Entertainment, a unit of Time Warner, Inc. as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will further show evidence from a one Gregory B. Thagard, one of the principal inventors and proponents of the DVD6c Licensing Group as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications affect interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place. Deposition testimony will conclusively show evidence from the intellectual property department of Greenberg Traurig LLP (counsel to the Florida Bar Defendants herein), who conducted a full review of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property in or about Spring 2002 as to the sabotage of Plaintiffs patent applications that affects interstate and foreign commerce, and this Court, simply, must allow discovery1 to take place.
18 U.S.C. § 1963 Criminal Penalties
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1963 attaches criminal penalties to the actions of Defendants to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to bring such actions to the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for a full investigation.
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1963 attaches criminal penalties to the actions of Defendants to preserve and protect the politically connected Proskauer Defendants and their accomplices, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court to bring such actions to the office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for a full investigation.
18 U.S.C. § 1964 – Civil Remedies
Where 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (a) grants the district courts of the United States jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of section 1962 by issuing appropriate orders, and by 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), Plaintiffs injured in their business and property by reason of a violation of section 1962 provides civil remedies by instituting the action prayed to reopen herein, including the recovery of threefold damages the Plaintiffs sustained and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney’s fees.
18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 – Standing
Where 18 U.S.C. § Section 1965 provides that any civil action under §§ 1961 to 1965 by Plaintiffs’ may be instituted against Defendants in this Court or in any district in which such Plaintiffs reside.
DISQUALIFICATION OPPOSITION
CONCLUSION
Attorney for Plaintiffs, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580, Tel.: (914) 217-0038
By: P. Stephen Lamont
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to all defendants by facsimile this 14nd day of November 2010. Defendants are served by facsimile as opposed to hand delivery to the Court for the sake of Pro se expediency.
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Joanna Smith/Gregg M. Mashberg Proskauer Rose LLP
Counsel for the Proskauer Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
Monica Connell, Esq., Office of the New York State Attorney General
Counsel for the New York State Defendants Facsimile: (212) 416-6075
Kent K. Anker, Esq., Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman LLP
Counsel for the Foley Larder LLP Defendants, Facsimile: (212) 373-7944
Raymond A. Joao, Pro se, c/o Fried & Epstein LLP
Counsel for Defendant Joao, Facsimile: (212) 268-3110
Stephen H. Hall, Office of the Virginia State Attorney General
Counsel for the Virginia Defendants, Facsimile: (804) 786-1991
Richard Howard, Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Breitstone
Counsel for Meltzer Defendants, Facsimile: (516) 747-0653
Glenn T. Burhans/Bridget Smitha, Greenberg Traurig LLP
Counsel for Florida Bar Defendants, Facsimile: (850) 681-0207
Posts
58 comments:
Sooner or later, some court of some kind will have to admit that legal insiders were involved in criminal activity. Maybe the time is soon. I've been following this patent rip off case, it's wild! GO IVIEWIT!!
It's a racketeering scheme from Buffalo to Montauk through and through...;)
Iviewit is a a tribute to the combatants of the corrupt legal system...don't let go, don't let go!!
If it wasn't for Stephen Lamont this case would have been history a longggg time ago..Bravo Stephen!!!
JUST BE PREPARED TO START SHOOTING WHEN THEY BLOW YOU OFF WITH THEIR UNGODLY SEMANTIC GYMNASTICSW
the filings look good but the Iviewit case not only could be re-filed but also filed in multiple jurisdictions so the notion that the case is or was dead is way off
Insightful at 7:36 PM
Filing in multiple districts seems like a good idea. The violations of you patents has caused you harm in every jurisdiction in the u.s., and possibly, internationally.
I have been following this and can't believe how this case has been treated.
If something so clear is treated this way, what chance does anyone have in the Federal Courts?
Looks like 8 days passed the Reply's filing date and just checked Pacer...no ruling yet. Could it be that Shira will finally do the right thing??? Naaaawwww!
THEY WONT DO THE RIGHT THING
THERE MUST BE SHOOTING INVOLVED !!!!
Two part comment Part 1
From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein [mailto:iviewit@iviewit.tv]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 10:10 AM
To: Andrew Cuomo ~ New York State Attorney General @ Office of the Attorney General (info@andrewcuomo.com); Steven Michael Cohen, Counselor and Chief of Staff @ New York Office of the Attorney General (steven.cohen@oag.state.ny.us); Monica Connell, Assistant Attorney General - Division of State Counsel Litigation Bureau ~ State of New York Office of the Attorney General (monica.connell@oag.state.ny.us)
Cc: The Honorable Glenn Fine - Inspector General Department of Justice; The Honorable Glenn Fine ~ Inspector General @ United States Department of Justice (glenn.a.fine@usdoj.gov); The Honorable Madam Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (sf.nancy@mail.house.gov); The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin @ United States District Court ~ Southern District of New York (shira_a._scheindlin@NYSD.uscourts.gov); The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General @ US DOJ (inspector.general@usdoj.gov); The Honorable Eric H. Holder Jr., United States Attorney General @ US DOJ (AskDOJ@usdoj.gov); The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th) - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (john.conyers@mail.house.gov); John L. Sampson, Chairman ~ New York Senate Judiciary Committee (sampson@senate.state.ny.us); Mary L. Schapiro ~ Chairman @ United States Securities & Exchange Commission (SchapiroM@sec.gov); Enforcement @ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (enforcement@sec.gov); Mary L. Schapiro, Chairman @ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov); H. David Kotz ~ Inspector General @ Securities Exchange Commission Inspector General Office (oig@sec.gov); Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (Complaints@tigta.treas.gov); David Gouvaia @ Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (david.gouvaia@tigta.treas.gov); Daniel O'Rourke - Small Business Administration Inspector General Office; The Honorable Inspector General Todd J. Zinser @ Department of Commerce (TZinser@OIG.DOC.GOV); David Kappos ~ Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO (david.kappos@USPTO.gov); Sharon Barner ~ Deputy Director @ United States Patent & Trademark Office (sharon.barner@uspto.gov); Harry I. Moatz ~ Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment & Discipline; The Honorable President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama II (president@whitehouse.gov); Thomas P. DiNapoli @ Comptroller of the State of New York (investigations@osc.state.ny.us); New York State Senator Pedro Espada Jr. (D) @ 33rd Senate District (espada@senate.state.ny.us); Lisa Lashley (spotts@senate.state.ny.us); Lisa Lashley, Special Counsel ~ Senator John L. Sampson, Chairman ~ New York Senate Judiciary Committee (llashley@senate.state.ny.us); Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (caroline@cprogers.com); Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. - Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris (MMulrooney@JTWAMM.com); Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Andrew Dietz @ Rock-It Cargo USA, Inc. (andyd@rockitcargo.com)
Subject: Andrew Cuomo Criminal Complaint New York Attorney General Cuomo Public Integrity
To All Parties,
Attached are Criminal Complaints against New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, the New York Attorney General Office, Chief Of Staff for Andrew Cuomo Steven Michael Cohen and Monica Connell. There are three separate letters in Adobe PDF attached, one to Governor David Paterson, one to the Supervising Judge of the NY Criminal Courts and one for Andrew Cuomo et al. Please docket these complaints as part of the Iviewit Investigations your offices are conducting as you have been cc’d this message as you are on the carbon copy of the letters.
Part 2 comment
As for the NY Attorney General Office and Staff this Complaint is lodged against, obviously since you are a DEFENDANT in the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST lawsuit referenced, while acting as counsel for NY State Defendants in the same lawsuit and further Defending Your Offices and Your Selves in conflict, while also investigating earlier complaints lodged with your offices causing further conflict, perhaps it is time to end your myriad of conflicts, which act to deny due process to my complaints through ILLEGAL STATE & FEDERAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and turn this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT over for IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION to a NON CONFLICTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR or other Investigatory Agency that is free of Conflicts of Interest. If you need additional information please feel free to contact me at any of the numbers below.
Copies of the documents can also be found @
Criminal Complaint filed with NY AG Public Integrity Unit
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20101120%20FINAL%20Andrew%20Cuomo%20Criminal%20Complaint%20New%20York%20Attorney%20General%20Cuomo%20Public%20Integrity%20Cover%20Letter%20Color.pdf
and
Criminal Complaint filed with NY Criminal Court Supervising Judge, Hon. Melissa Jackson and Borough Chief Clerk, Serena Springle
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20101120%20FINAL%20Andrew%20Cuomo%20Criminal%20Complaint%20Supervising%20Judge%20Cover%20Letter%20and%20Complaint%20Color.pdf
and
Criminal Complaint filed with New York Governor David Paterson
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20101120%20FINAL%20Andrew%20Cuomo%20Criminal%20Complaint%20Governor%20David%20Paterson%20Cover%20Letter%20Fingerprinted%20Color.pdf
Thank You and Have a Wonderful Holiday! Best ~ Eliot Bernstein
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
http://www.iviewit.tv
http://www.citizensrevolt.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot
http://www.youtube.com/user/eliotbernstein?feature=mhum
Also, check out
Eliot's Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cw0gogF4Fs&feature=player_embedded
and Part 2 @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apc_Zc_YNIk&feature=related
and
Christine Anderson Whistleblower Testimony @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlK73p4Ueo
and Eliot Part 1 - The Iviewit Inventions @
http://www.tvandvideoguide.com/iviewittv.html
Other Websites I like:
http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html
http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http://www.changecourtsnow.com
http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://www.parentadvocates.org
http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com
http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com
http://www.trusteefraud.com/trusteefraud-blog
http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer
http://www.liberty-candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-For-Greg/111952178833067
http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution)
Part 2 comment
As for the NY Attorney General Office and Staff this Complaint is lodged against, obviously since you are a DEFENDANT in the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST lawsuit referenced, while acting as counsel for NY State Defendants in the same lawsuit and further Defending Your Offices and Your Selves in conflict, while also investigating earlier complaints lodged with your offices causing further conflict, perhaps it is time to end your myriad of conflicts, which act to deny due process to my complaints through ILLEGAL STATE & FEDERAL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and turn this CRIMINAL COMPLAINT over for IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION to a NON CONFLICTED SPECIAL PROSECUTOR or other Investigatory Agency that is free of Conflicts of Interest. If you need additional information please feel free to contact me at any of the numbers below.
Copies of the documents can also be found @
Criminal Complaint filed with NY AG Public Integrity Unit
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20101120%20FINAL%20Andrew%20Cuomo%20Criminal%20Complaint%20New%20York%20Attorney%20General%20Cuomo%20Public%20Integrity%20Cover%20Letter%20Color.pdf
and
Criminal Complaint filed with NY Criminal Court Supervising Judge, Hon. Melissa Jackson and Borough Chief Clerk, Serena Springle
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20101120%20FINAL%20Andrew%20Cuomo%20Criminal%20Complaint%20Supervising%20Judge%20Cover%20Letter%20and%20Complaint%20Color.pdf
and
Criminal Complaint filed with New York Governor David Paterson
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20101120%20FINAL%20Andrew%20Cuomo%20Criminal%20Complaint%20Governor%20David%20Paterson%20Cover%20Letter%20Fingerprinted%20Color.pdf
Thank You and Have a Wonderful Holiday! Best ~ Eliot Bernstein
ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and P. STEPHEN LAMONT
ON BEHALF OF SHAREHOLDERS OF IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs,
By the way, this is the incorrect Case Title and I do not believe Lamont has sought leave to amend the case title to a new one and thus the pleading should be rejected by Scheindlin as Fraud on the Court. Note, Lamont is not representing individually but only on behalf of others and he is NOT a LAWYER, Columbia grad, who failed to take bar?
Looks like Bernstein is DESPERATE to have this Motion denied; what's wrong with this picture?
Well known that Bernstein was terminated with cause where his actions were so outrageous that it forced cancellation of his direct capital shares; talk about having skin in the game NOT.
Yeah, I heard that too. Looks like his pattern of feeding defamatory bs to his Dyke bitch Crystal Cox backfired big time. Expensive move.
Re: Iviewit Matters and in general. Crystal Cox sucks d____ in hell and her heads spins around too. Heard www.blogger.com opened an investigation on this "world renowned" investigative reporter.
The only thing Crystal Cox investigates is the inner workings of Bernstein's bum; wonder how much he is paying her.
Not sure who the Upstate NY commenter is but since I have been falsely accused of making these types of comments here in the past I state these comments did not come from KRH.
I make no determination on the merits of much of this at this point in time. Alot of unanswered questions but also seems like alot of unnecessary in - fighting as well. Present view based upon present state of knowledge.
The Lamont motion looks good in many respects although also seems that the entire case could be re-filed in ny and also in multiple jurisdictions internationally as previously stated.
krh
upstate ny
What legal standing does Stephen Lamont have in this matter? If he has none, what motives are at the heart of his actions?
Following this for almost a year now it's clear that P. Stephen Lamont is leaving no stone un-turned to bring it home for his shareholders...fail to see anything improper or illegal in that. Win one (Lamont) win all (shareholders)...I, for one, like the Motion...just what are Defendants doing making determinations and ruling on Plaintiffs filings...Lamont called their number, caught them in their conflicted cross hairs, and has a decent chance of getting the District Court judge to grant some of the relief requested. Anyone, with a different view of this, please spell it out in detail in a future comment.
...And make sure your argument holds water, not just retaliations, conjecture, or loose conclusions, just facts. I'll bet NO commenter can meet this test, and if anyone tries to meet this test, they will have to conclude with what would be in it for Lamont; one "bought" shareholder, if this is your argument," does nothing to hold back dozens of other shareholders. Just my view of this back-biting that's all...in fact, for no other article on this blog in almost a year, do I see such behavior, and it all seems to emanate with the "chronic criminal complainer."
Ask yourself why Lamenting Lamont did not serve the AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants, and all of them, when he is responding and the Defendants he is serving are all responding to the Docketed Amended Complaint. Defendants like Proskauer even representing themselves Pro Se??? But why would Lamenting Lamont not serve IBM, INTEL, Warner Bros and the hundreds of Defendants and only serve a few of his carefully choosen defendants who are all conflicted and most representing themselves in these matters?
This would have served the Shareholders well, after a few experts reviewed his filing they found it worthless, just another way for the Defendants to feather their caps with denials. Lamont was fired long ago, his claims that I was fired are lies and slander which he is good at. Has anyone asked him why he failed to take the Bar, the only Columbia grad if in fact he went there at all.
Note, the comments above are all anonymous that speak against me as they are all Lamont lamenting.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL (yes, two identically named)
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
2753 N.W. 34th St.
Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o)
(561) 886.7628 (c)
(561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv
http://www.iviewit.tv
http://www.citizensrevolt.tv
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress
http://iviewit.tv/wordpresseliot
http://www.youtube.com/user/eliotbernstein?feature=mhum
Also, check out
Eliot's Testimony at the NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Cw0gogF4Fs&feature=player_embedded
and Part 2 @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apc_Zc_YNIk&feature=related
and
Christine Anderson Whistleblower Testimony @
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlK73p4Ueo
and Eliot Part 1 - The Iviewit Inventions @
http://www.tvandvideoguide.com/iviewittv.html
Other Websites I like:
http://www.deniedpatent.com
http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com
http://www.judgewatch.org/index.html
http://www.enddiscriminationnow.com
http://www.corruptcourts.org
http://www.changecourtsnow.com
http://www.makeourofficialsaccountable.com
http://www.parentadvocates.org
http://www.newyorkcourtcorruption.blogspot.com
http://cuomotarp.blogspot.com
http://www.disbarthefloridabar.com
http://www.trusteefraud.com/trusteefraud-blog
http://www.VoteForGreg.us Greg Fischer
http://www.liberty-candidates.org/greg-fischer/
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Vote-For-Greg/111952178833067
http://www.killallthelawyers.ws/law (The Shakespearean Solution)
This blog has lost any journalistic integrity, it removes solid comments from readers but leaves up hate crime mail against Crystal Cox with vulgar vernacular against homosexuals. Yet, when Eliot Bernstein responds to the lies above the retort is removed. This is now scripted comments by hateful people who are homophobic it appears and committing hate crimes against a journalist doing more for Iviewit in 2 years than Lamont did for the short time h worked for Iviewit before being fired for CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. I guess now, he and Frank, ya know the guy with an alias who led the sheep to slaughter under false pretense etc. must script their blog and use as a vehicle to launch hate crimes. Ban this crappy blog that posts old has been stories and lies and witch hunts. I always say that those who bash homosexuals are usually either latent homosexuals themselves who are closeted or PEDOPHILES. Frank + Lamont???
Repost of Censured Comment - First Comment Removed by Censor, this is after several other comments were removed all exposing the fraud of Lamont and Brady.
"Ask yourself why Lamenting Lamont did not serve the AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants, and all of them, when he is res...ponding and the Defendants
he is serving are all responding to the Docketed Amended Complaint. Defendants like Proskauer even representing themselves Pro Se??? But why
would Lamenting Lamont not serve IBM, INTEL, Warner Bros and the hundreds of Defendants and only serve a few of his carefully choosen
defendants who are all conflicted and most representing themselves in these matters?
This would have served the Shareholders well, after a few experts reviewed his filing they found it worthless, just another way for the Defendants
to feather their caps with denials. Lamont was fired long ago, his claims that I was fired are lies and slander which he is good at. Has anyone asked
him why he failed to take the Bar, the only Columbia grad if in fact he went there at all.
Note, the comments above are all anonymous that speak against me as they are all Lamont lamenting."
Eliot I. Bernstein
Inventor
Someone please give "the inventor" his meds.
I get a hardy laugh every time I see him complain that his comments are removed when they're not. I know this because I'm reading, or trying to anyway, his comments. Maybe in addition to the meds, a new pair of glasses would be in order.
So I am a Dyke and a Bitch does that mean that 1 + 1 does not equal 2. I mean come on me being a Dyke Bitch, well has nothing to do with Stephen Lamont, Breaking the Law.
Stephen Lamont has no Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit. Stephen Lamont has not done any "job" to get iViewit Justice, Stephen is paid to KEEP iViewit from Justice.
Look Deep Folks, use your common sense.. if Stephen Lamont's only defense is that Crystal Cox is a Dyke Bitch, Well Makes Ya Wonder Don't It.. Think for Yourself...
Oh and Remember me being a Dyke and a Bitch is NOT Illegal...
From a distance it seems that Bernstein is panicking about Lamont being successful in reopening. Ask yourself why? Sure SAS has loaded her gun and pointing it right at Iviewit head ready to pull the trigger, by I wonder what the 2nd Circuit and the US Supreme Court would think about a denial order. I read the original Motion and it's right there in black and white: Martin Gold made a determination about an Iviewit complaint while he was a Defendant/Respondent in the Iviewit case...outrageous, dumb move, and in writing no less?
Hon. Saxe and Hon. Andrias sat on a panel to deny an Iviewit Motion while they we similarly situated as Defendants/Respondents...equally outrageous...stay tuned for how Shira gets hereself out of this one. 15 days past completion of scheduling orders and counting...
16 days past the Reply's filing date, and still no ruling - far longer than the McKeown and Esposito filings.
Crystal L. Cox - Dyke Bitches need not comment here. Why don't you use your time more productively and create what amounts to you 100th blog entitled dykebitch.blogspot.com and write all about yourself!!!
Crystal L. Cox is an extortionist and a cyber terrorist. Her moniker as an "investigative reporter" is a convenient front for her money laundering scheme. Call yourself a whistle blower? Well, I'm a whistle blower myself, an IRS whistle blower...;)
I just googled Crystal L. Cox and credibility is lacking...BIG TIME. Her baseless attacks on the author of this Motion, the Administrator of this blog, and prominent Silicon Valley executives are laughable, where her sexual preferences are the last thing to mention. Whose "sock puppet" is she, and how much does she get paid, or does she just extort her victims, launder the money, and evade taxes as alleged above? Hopefully she is aware that the FBI is all over this blog.
Crystal L. Cox: As the Queen says in Alice in Wonderland, "[Figuratively] Off with her head!!!"
Available complaint forms a few clicks away at www.blogger.com
Come on folks, let's stick to the point here. It's 17 days past Iviewit's reply date and where is Judge Scheindlin.
Crystal L. Cox, Esq.: The only things illegal that she knows for sure are penises.
I just ran a background check on Crystal L. Cox of Missoula, Montana...unbelievable results to be posted shortly.
Crystal L. Cox: Brilliant!!! Call the IRS Whistle Blower Hotline on her...she'll probably turn suit and the next whistle she'll be blowing is the investigator's who comes knocking.
"[Figuratively] off with her head."
the best comment i have seen here in days is the one the points out that the Reply time on US SDNY District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin's calendar is 17 days past due.
krh
upstate ny
..And that seems to put Bernstein in panic mode and his "sock puppet" Crystal L. Cox.
Fully 18 days after the Reply filing date, and Shira still has not ruled!
Bat Brain Bernstein and his sock puppet must just be dying...
Heard through the grapevine that if Shira reopens, Bernstein may try to sabotage it.
...Brilliant, you mean just like Eliot Bernstein sabotaged the 2nd Circuit appeal?
Yeah, I got that email on a FW; it seems Eliot Bernstein got himself terminated with Cause for SABOTAGING Iviewit's 2nd Circuit appeal, STEALING hundreds of thousands of dollars in Iviewit monies, and having the audacity to begin FRAUDING the Iviewit corporate record. Now, we should all ask, who is the CRIMINAL here? I wonder if he included HIMSELF in his now infamous SEC complaint!
Crystal L. Cox: Are we sure it's genuine, and not self authored to lift her sick self into the euphoria she so longs for. If it in afct genuine, is anyone surprised?
Crystal L. Cox credibility hits an all time low. Presently claiming that Movant/Plaintiff Lamont is the "employer" of her hit man, only she has the WRONG IP address. Come on folks, blogger complaint form at www.blogger.com
Lol, lol...that about puts the last nail in Crystal L. Cox's virtual coffin.
If what the above poster says is true (wrong IP addresses) Crystal L. Cox has set herself up for a mighty hard, expensive fall. Accusing someone of first degree mur--- then blasting it into the cloud with the wrong IP address is the stupidist thing we have ever heard of.
Ok, for Crystal L. Cox to make such a serious allegation (that Plaintiff Lamont hired a hit man to kill her) and then to have erroneous facts to back it up (wrong IP address) it is clear that her credibility is zero!!! Therefore, as her credibility is zero, Google must take down her sites, and I for one will be lobbying toward that end. Thanks for the complaint link.
It has now been 23 days since the filing of the Iviewit Reply by Lamont and Shira has yet to rule. The rumor mill is swirling: is Shira taking the matter to the USA and placing a stay on the civil case?
Crystal L. Cox dug a deep hole for herself by alleging conspiracy to commit murder with the WRONG IP address, and the last time I looked at a map, Poughkeepsie is NO WHERE near Rye. Will Plaintiff Lamont file a lawsuit?
Good question. If I were Crystal L. Cox, I would leave the country for awhile. This guy Lamont, looking at the way he is slamming the upper echelons of the corrupt enterprise, imagine what he would do to her.
Crystal L. Cox deserves nothing less than "[Figuratively] OFF WITH HER HEAD." "Empower me" says this Dyke Bitch!
It has been more than 24 days since the Reply was served and filed, and Shira still has not ruled. Any guesses why?
WHY ???
BECAUSE THERE IS NO SHOOTING !!!!
It has now been more than 28 days past the completion of Shira's Scheduling Order and still no ruling!!! It seems as if CEO Lamont has given her some good, hard, hopefully honest, thinking to do. Some say she has taken it to the Feds...what do you think????
Post a Comment