Iviewit Press Release: Patentgate and NY's Ethics Scandal (MORE, CLICK HERE)

History in the making, folks. Tammany Hall Part II is in full swing. See Iviewit's November 23, 2007 Press Release....MORE....

Press Release
November 23, 2007

For Immediate Release:

NY TIMES REPORTS $80 MILLION SUIT CLAIMING WHITEWASHING IVIEWIT COMPLAINTS v.PROSKAUER & NY SUPREME COURT

NY TIMES & LAW JOURNAL REPORT $80 MILLION SUIT CLAIMING WHITEWASHING OF IVIEWIT COMPLAINTS v. PROSKAUER, STEVEN KRANE PAST NYSBA PRES, FOLEY LARDNER & NY COURT OFFICERS - REVEALED BY ATTY INSIDE WHISTLEBLOWER

United States of America (Press Release ) November 23, 2007 -- In an explosive $80 Million 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 Committee(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 @ http://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.
http://www.iviewit.tv/
iviewit@iviewit.tv
530-529-4110

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.

For more information:

39 Little Ave
Red Bluff, CA 96080
Visit our website: http://iviewit.tv
Eliot Bernstein & P. Stephen Lamont
Visit author's site

Keywords:
iviewit
Patentgate
Proskauer Rose
New York Times
New York Law Journal Steven C. Krane
New York

Justice Department Widens "Patentgate" Probe Buried by Ethics Chief Thomas J. Cahill...CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY

In a letter dated July 16, 2007, 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 investigation that involves an almost surreal story of the theft of nearly 30 U.S. Patents, and other intellectual property, worth billions of dollars. 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. (To the right, see the July 16, 2007 letter "D.O.J. Widens Patentgate Probe")...


Coming Soon: Iviewit's Patentgate –
Part II - Naming the Patentgate Players (New York's Top Politicians and Judges)
Part III – Why a Once-Top Law Firm Thought They'd Get Away with It ($$)
Part IV – The Groundbreaking Iviewit Technology & Patentgate Fraud Proof

Part I

The Fox and the Hen House

It was only recently exposed in July that the underlying "Patentgate" inquiries were effectively buried, or derailed, under the leadership of Manhattan's top State ethics Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. Mr. Cahill's "retirement" was then quickly announced after his own ethical failings in the Patentgate matter, along with other ethics complaints that were made, became known.

While no one can exactly figure out how inquiries under Mr. Cahill's charge went so awry, one thing is certain. At the same time the Patentgate probes were being secreted by state officials in New York, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent bar increased their own investigation into the same matter implicating the same attorneys. (Note: Mr. Cahill's replacement was recently decided, and an announcement is expected as early as next week by the Appellate Division, First Department Presiding Justice, Jonathan Lippman.)

"Patentgate"

The defrauded company is called "Iviewit" – pronounced, "I-view-it." The company's internet site originally advertised their groundbreaking technology. Now, the opening page of the company website (www.iviewit.tv) displays unsettling photographs of the inventor's family vehicle after it was bombed.

"This is quite serious," says an investigator close to the federal probe. "The charges allege that valuable 'back-bone enabling digital imaging technology'-- MPEG type intellectual property-- was stolen by the inventor's own attorneys, the once-untouchable Manhattan based law firm Proskauer Rose. This is going to get very ugly," he says.

Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House Judiciary Committees have known about the Iviewit investigation since about September of 2006, and it is in our nation's capital where the matter quickly earned its moniker "Patentgate." And the story was also globally known in technical, Intellectual Property circles. But the big question remains: how did such an explosive story like Patentgate stay off every mainstream media's radar screen—especially in New York.


"I know how," says a retired federal agent who asked not to be identified. "Phone calls were made—many phone calls. Plain and simple." And while this retired federal agent isn't surprised by the apparent "cover-up," he is alarmed by his own findings after a month-long independent review of all submitted Iviewit papers. "I can't find one discrepancy in the allegations, not one unsubstantiated charge," he says. "For one, you have the highest state courts in New York white-washing this thing with 'unpublished' rulings. And then you have state ethics committees contradicting themselves-- in writing, no less. It's a complete meltdown," he concludes. "The broken system appears to have finally fallen apart."

"Iviewit was been radio-active from day one," says one prosecutor who asked not to be named. "Considering who was involved, you know the phones were ringing off the hook, and with a simple directive: 'don't go near it' (an inquiry)." He believes, however that a serious shake-up is imminent. "The powers that be can't contain this story anymore—it's out, U.S. Senators and Congressman are talking about it. This involves national Commerce issues: attorneys stealing U.S. Patents from their own client, and the illegal failings of a state's ethics agency by its own cover-up, and selective, self-dealing, politically-based inaction. Patentgate appears to have exposed the true, and troubling, underbelly of ethics investigations in New York State. And its not pretty."

Additional Background Information

The original complaint involving Thomas Cahill and the Proskauer Rose law firm has been "pending" since February of 2003. The Cahill Proskauer Complaint is a high priority for the new State Chief Administrative Judge, the Honorable Ann T. Pfau.

The Cahill Proskauer issue became a hot topic in Washington, D.C. in early 2007 at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Department of Commerce (The United States Patent and Trademark Office). And it has specifically caught the attention of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and U.S. House Representatives John D. Dingell and Nita Lowey.

The Cahill Proskauer Scandal involves many allegations: the alleged theft by Proskauer of numerous U.S. Patents from their own client; claimed losses over 10 years on a trillion dollar technology pool that has affected all forms of digital imaging and video; and the March, 2005 bombing in Boynton Beach, Florida of the inventor-client-complainant's family mini-van.

It is alleged that Mr. Cahill masterminded the scheme to indefinitely delay complaints against Proskauer Rose, himself, and former New York State Bar Association President and Proskauer partner Steven C. Krane, Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein, chief counsel for MPEGLA, and attorney Raymond Joao of Yonkers. It is also alleged that attorney Steven C. Krane initially interceded, with Mr. Cahill's knowledge and consent, in handling disciplinary complaints involving himself at the same time he was associated with the 1st Department in Manhattan.

Attorney Krane's conflicts were exposed when officials from the Iviewit company contacted Katherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who contradicted Cahill's statements and Krane's written denial of his 1st Dept roles. Ms. O'Hagan Wolfe advised that she was, in fact, on a Committee at the 1st Dept with both Cahill and Krane, and that they even had a meeting that same night.

The various Cahill Proskauer issues bounced around under the public radar screen at the Court of Appeals in Albany and were ultimately transferred from the 1st Department to the 2nd Department in Brooklyn. This was done after 5 justices of the 1st Dept ruled unanimously to investigate Krane, Rubenstein and Joao for conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety after their review of the 1st Department complaint.

The Cahill inquiry is apparently "still pending" under attorney Martin R. Gold who, insiders say, was directed to "sit on it…forever."

Earlier this year, FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. assigned additional agents to the Public Integrity Corruption squad at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, and where agents have been actively conducting interviews.

Coming Soon: Iviewit's Patentgate – Part II

Insight Grows in Attorney Sex Probe....(CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY)

With very little, if any, confidence left in the Manhattan-based Attorney Departmental Disciplinary Committee, which is charged with upholding the legal bar's ethics, yesterday's (October 10, 2007) posting has brought one important question for all to consider: Did you ever wonder why cameras and audio recorders are not allowed in hearings or courtrooms? .....MORE......……

And another insightful comment follows, in part, below and in responding to a woman having to resort to video and audio-taping the grossly improper acts of her own attorney. (To see the full comment, review the October 10, 2007 "comments" section):

From Eliot Bernstein of www.Iviewit.tv and Patentgate fame:

The reason this story is sad is because it shows how, since corruption is at the top, the whole has gone to hell all the way to bottom feeding attorney’s who are supposed to uphold justice.

This woman represents a needle in the haystack to fight powerful men who hide behind their Esq. degree-- openly, imagine that, as they fear no repercussions...

This woman is [screwed]in her plight to get justice against this man who hangs with the [connect], she is lucky she is not considered a terrorist, bagged, shipped to Gitmo, denied her rights...so frightening it should make you give up your rights to a government that is selling them out from you faster than a lawyer violating his ethics), until she kills herself in despair that no justice will come her way.

Just like all those other "suspected terrorists" denied habeas corpus and basic rights, while being tortured by some henchman ... who killed themselves without due process or rights, just like millions eventually did in concentration camps.

Normally I say bah, should have fought from the start, you gave it up, you get what was coming but here we have a bold New Yorker unafraid of the miscarriage of justice against her, who instead fears for her child and the future it holds for her, willing to fight for the right and it makes me pick my weapon of choice, my pen, to aid and abet her cause.

My hat and heart are off to her, not that she will win, not that she may blow her brains out in Nazi America in desperation but because she is a mother who wants not her children to have to fight this prick and those at the top who ignore her pleas for simple justice in a slam dunk case if the country had not gone utterly mad at the top, she chooses in their face, despite the havoc they will reap or rape upon her, to prevent her children from suffering at their hands.

The link to her video: http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Allen.Isaac.Gladstein.2.232894.html

It is the not the point of her plight that matters, it is the fact that justice cannot be served in hers and many others lives due to our new Nazi American ways.

Her case shows that when the government is seized at the top, the center of government is corrupted as it has nowhere to go either, without a whistler blower becoming a dissenter, a dissenter a terrorist, a terrorist bagged, shipped to...

She fears no evil because like many New York females I used to know, she loves her children and is afraid of monsters running amuck and more afraid that law has become lawlessness, she does not take s*&%, roll over and die ....

She is reaching out to New Yorkers to take up her case against the corruption in the system, she is putting her neck on the line, she fears these attorneys and the committee's are working to kill her, she fears for her daughter, yet she fears more the future for her child.

Take a leaf from her; make her your poster child to show how the culture of corruption works top down and how even a little woman can take on big government when her priorities are right, when she has not sold out or given up.

What to do to kill this disease that plagues our country so?

I urge you to visit www.iviewit.tv and http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Book/index.htm to find out how the fox got in the henhouse when they were caught robbing the United States Patent & Trademark Office, how they had been planning in secret societies to overthrow the country for three generation, who they are, how deep they got, how to stop them and how the hunter was standing behind the fox with a big bad shotgun and...

Come on New York, get on the phone, call your f&*$ing politicians, your disciplinary departments, etc. - demand answers to the injustices, call the f*&%ing President, when they don't answer, as public servants should, they need to dragged out by the neck.

I am not sure if it is still in the Constitution, or if they are writing it away but it used to say, beware of government and if you find it corrupt, take [action] against it, TEAR DOWN THE WALL. Demand explanations.....

Children and all good parents need to take up the streets, protest their courts, protest the corruption, shout loud and long, put them in the courts and try them using their own legal bs to convict those found violating office of treason...

Wherever they flourish expose them to the light, like vampires they hate the light.
When you go to Iviewit you will see who they are and how they are operating...

The secret is out, it is a matter of time until their power is usurped and justice will prevail. On that day, this piece of s&$* rapist attorney in New York will lose his law suit against his victim, she will get justice to arrest him and try him and she will feel an ounce safer for her child. He will no longer be feeling safe that the top is corrupt and he will be shielded but instead will find him in jail...and justice will be served after being perversed.

Keep fighting honey and hats off to all those in New York who have some Chutzpah left, a set of balls, a take no s*&$ from public *&%*&$%# attitude and are working to return America to a safe from the terrorists within running or ruining our country.

Anybody who does not support my position and sides with the *&%$ going on in this country is not only non-patriotic but does not support the troops in killing people who did nothing to us...

Holy Cow Batman, a woman was accosted by her attorney for his fees, what should we do???

Golly Gee Robin, we need to get on the Batphone to Commiss Gordon....

Robin I fear the establishment can't help us any longer, it appears Joker has poisoned them all with Greed dust and it's Helter Skelter here in Gotham, perhaps the whole nation.

Golly Gee Batman, should we give up and join the party, commiss Gordon offered us five million last week to back off Mr. Freeze, should I give him our wire #'s??? The CFR just started a European branch, maybe it is all hopeless...

Gotham was returned to a state of normalcy, where kids could play in the yard not fearing their government was violating them and denying them rights, New Yorkers were proud again, Batman was relieved, Robin was dead; Gordon is serving 25-life with Cahill, Kaye and all the other corrupt public officials and attorneys. Batman had a day of relief before the criminal element began to return working for another attempt at a power grab in a hundred years, knowing that at least for today woman and children were again safe from falling buildings and guys on camels on Broadway.

Goodnight New York and when you wake may you be pissed and more so take action. Call a politician for fun on any of a thousand issues; make sure he takes your call. Call and ask how the Iviewit patents are doing if you don’t have any other issues like war crimes that really piss ya off.

Best Batman, Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit, Patentgate
iviewit@iviewit.tv
530-529-4110

NY Federal Judge: Ethics Scandal Cases Related

On Thursday, January 10, 2008, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin directed that the 1.5 Billion dollar Iviewit “patentgate” case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on December 12, 2007, be assigned to her court. 

Judge Scheindlin accepted the Iviewit lawsuit, Bernstein v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, as related to the pending New York attorney ethics scandal case, Anderson v. The State of New York. 

Allegations of covering-up and whitewashing complaints against favored attorneys find both cases seeking the appointment of a federal monitor to take over New York’s statewide attorney ethics committees.  A third lawsuit, filed December 28, 2007, is currently under review by Judge Scheindlin to be designated as an associated case in the state ethics scandal, Tammany Hall II. 

Federal Magistrate Judge Douglas F. Eaton has also been assigned to both the Anderson and Iviewit matters.

In another order, signed January 9, 2008, Judge Scheindlin directed U.S. Marshals to serve the Iviewit lawsuit on the listed defendants.

Click here to see Iviewit story

Proskauer Rose 'House of Cards' Crumbling

Proskauer lays off 35 associates and 25 staff
Legal Week by Zach Lowe - December 5, 2008

Proskauer Rose is laying off 35 associates and 25 administrative staff, reports The Am Law Daily. The news was announced in a memo, sent out by the firm yesterday (4 December), although which offices or practice areas will suffer the most is not specified. The New York firm said the layoffs are due to both the economic crisis and the "unprecedented reduction in our historical lawyer attrition rate." Proskauer launched an office in London last year with hire of Matthew Hudson, the former head of O'Melveny & Myers' City arm. In September, the firm also secured its long-awaited Asia launch after hiring a two-partner team in Beijing from Heller Ehrman. Proskauer has been one of the most upwardly-mobile practices in the US in recent years, successfully expanding beyond its core employment practice into a stronger corporate profile. During the last two weeks a raft of US firms have made layoffs, including Reed Smith, White & Case, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, while firms including Cravath Swaine & Moore and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett have cut back associate bonuses.

On Friday, August 24, 2007, we ran "Justice Department Widens 'Patentgate' Probe Buried by Ethics Chief Thomas J. Cahill:

In a letter dated July 16, 2007, 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 investigation that involves an almost surreal story of the theft of nearly 30 U.S. Patents, and other intellectual property, worth billions of dollars. 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. (Click here to see the July 16, 2007 letter "D.O.J. Widens Patentgate Probe")

The Fox and the Hen House

It was only recently exposed in July that the underlying "Patentgate" inquiries were effectively buried, or derailed, under the leadership of Manhattan's top State ethics Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. Mr. Cahill's "retirement" was then quickly announced after his own ethical failings in the Patentgate matter, along with other ethics complaints that were made, became known.

While no one can exactly figure out how inquiries under Mr. Cahill's charge went so awry, one thing is certain. At the same time the Patentgate probes were being secreted by state officials in New York, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent bar increased their own investigation into the same matter implicating the same attorneys. (Note: Mr. Cahill's replacement was recently decided, and an announcement is expected as early as next week by the Appellate Division, First Department Presiding Justice, Jonathan Lippman.)

"Patentgate"

The defrauded company is called "Iviewit" – pronounced, "I-view-it." The company's internet site originally advertised their groundbreaking technology. Now, the opening page of the company website (www.iviewit.tv) displays unsettling photographs of the inventor's family vehicle after it was bombed.

"This is quite serious," says an investigator close to the federal probe. "The charges allege that valuable 'back-bone enabling digital imaging technology'-- MPEG type intellectual property-- was stolen by the inventor's own attorneys, the once-untouchable Manhattan based law firm Proskauer Rose. This is going to get very ugly," he says.

Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House Judiciary Committees have known about the Iviewit investigation since about September of 2006, and it is in our nation's capital where the matter quickly earned its moniker "Patentgate." And the story was also globally known in technical, Intellectual Property circles. But the big question remains: how did such an explosive story like Patentgate stay off every mainstream media's radar screen—especially in New York.

"I know how," says a retired federal agent who asked not to be identified. "Phone calls were made—many phone calls. Plain and simple." And while this retired federal agent isn't surprised by the apparent "cover-up," he is alarmed by his own findings after a month-long independent review of all submitted Iviewit papers. "I can't find one discrepancy in the allegations, not one unsubstantiated charge," he says. "For one, you have the highest state courts in New York white-washing this thing with 'unpublished' rulings. And then you have state ethics committees contradicting themselves-- in writing, no less. It's a complete meltdown," he concludes. "The broken system appears to have finally fallen apart."

"Iviewit was been radio-active from day one," says one prosecutor who asked not to be named. "Considering who was involved, you know the phones were ringing off the hook, and with a simple directive: 'don't go near it' (an inquiry)." He believes, however that a serious shake-up is imminent. "The powers that be can't contain this story anymore—it's out, U.S. Senators and Congressman are talking about it. This involves national Commerce issues: attorneys stealing U.S. Patents from their own client, and the illegal failings of a state's ethics agency by its own cover-up, and selective, self-dealing, politically-based inaction. Patentgate appears to have exposed the true, and troubling, underbelly of ethics investigations in New York State. And its not pretty."

Additional Background Information

The original complaint involving Thomas Cahill and the Proskauer Rose law firm has been "pending" since February of 2004. The Cahill Proskauer Complaint is a high priority for the new State Chief Administrative Judge, the Honorable Ann T. Pfau.

The Cahill Proskauer issue became a hot topic in Washington, D.C. in early 2007 at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Department of Commerce (The United States Patent and Trademark Office). And it has specifically caught the attention of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and U.S. House Representatives John D. Dingell and Nita Lowey. The Cahill Proskauer Scandal involves many allegations: the alleged theft by Proskauer of numerous U.S. Patents from their own client; claimed losses over 10 years on a trillion dollar technology pool that has affected all forms of digital imaging and video; and the March, 2005 bombing in Boynton Beach, Florida of the inventor-client-complainant's family mini-van.

It is alleged that Mr. Cahill masterminded the scheme to indefinitely delay complaints against Proskauer Rose, himself, and former New York State Bar Association President and Proskauer partner Steven C. Krane, Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein, chief counsel for MPEGLA, and attorney Raymond Joao of Yonkers. It is also alleged that attorney Steven C. Krane initially interceded, with Mr. Cahill's knowledge and consent, in handling disciplinary complaints involving himself at the same time he was associated with the 1st Department in Manhattan. Attorney Krane's conflicts were exposed when officials from the Iviewit company contacted Katherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who contradicted Cahill's statements and Krane's written denial of his 1st Dept roles. Ms. O'Hagan Wolfe advised that she was, in fact, on a Committee at the 1st Dept with both Cahill and Krane, and that they even had a meeting that same night.

The various Cahill Proskauer issues bounced around under the public radar screen at the Court of Appeals in Albany and were ultimately transferred from the 1st Department to the 2nd Department in Brooklyn. This was done after 5 justices of the 1st Dept ruled unanimously to investigate Krane, Rubenstein and Joao for conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety after their review of the 1st Department complaint. The Cahill inquiry is apparently "still pending" under attorney Martin R. Gold who, insiders say, was directed to "sit on it…forever." Earlier this year, FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. assigned additional agents to the Public Integrity Corruption squad at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, and where agents have been actively conducting interviews.

Iviewit Files Motion to Reopen Patentgate Federal Action

Click Here to See the Filed Iviewit Motion to Reopen, with Exhibits

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

DOCKET NO: 07Civ11196 (SAS)

ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and P. STEPHEN LAMONT

ON BEHALF OF SHAREHOLDERS OF IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., Plaintiffs,

-against-

MOTION

APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,
THOMAS J. CAHILL, in his official and individual
capacity, JOSEPH WIGLEY in his official and individual
capacity, CATHERINE O’HAGEN WOLFE in her
official and individual capacity, PAUL CURRAN in his
official and individual capacity, MARTIN R. GOLD in his
official and individual capacity , HON. ANGELA M.
MAZZARELLI in her official and individual capacity,
HON. RICHARD T. ANDRIAS in his official and
individual capacity, HON. DAVID B. SAXE in his official
and individual capacity, HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN in his
official and individual capacity, HON. LUIZ A.
GONZALES in his official and individual capacity,
APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,
LAWRENCE DIGIOVANNA in his official and
individual capacity, DIANA MAXFIELD KEARSE in
her official and individual capacity, JAMES E.
PELTZER in his official and individual capacity, HON.
A. GAIL PRUDENTI in her official and individual
capacity, STEVEN C. KRANE in his official and
individual capacity, HON. JUDITH S. KAYE in her
official and individual capacity, KENNETH
RUBENSTEIN, ESTATE OF STEPHEN KAYE,
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, MELTZER LIPPE
GOLDSTEIN & BREISTONE LLP, LEWIS S.
MELTZER, RAYMOND A. JOAO, FOLEY LARDNER
LLP, MICHAEL C. GREBE, WILLIAM J. DICK,
DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, STEVEN C. BECKER,
STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF
INVESTIGATION, LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT
PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
THE FLORIDA BAR, LORRAINE CHRISTINE
HOFFMAN in her official and individual capacity,
ERIC TURNER in his official and individual capacity,
JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS in his official and individual
capacity, KENNETH MARVIN in his official and
individual capacity, THOMAS HALL in his official and
individual capacity, DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her
official and individual capacity, VIRGINIA STATE BAR,
ANDREW H. GOODMAN in his official and individual
capacity, NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual
capacity, MARY W. MARTELINO in her official and
individual capacity, and John Does., Defendants

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO REOPEN DOCKET NO. 07-CIV-11196

BASED ON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Plaintiff, P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. moves 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”). Respectfully, the Court should take notice that not all Defendants are parties to this Motion (see CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENDANTS).

BACKGROUND

Beginning in 1997, Inventors of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (“Iviewit”) developed video and imaging technologies (the "Inventions") that use significantly less bandwidth than other technologies, provide a way to "zoom almost infinitely on a low resolution file with clarity," and were quickly incorporated into almost every digital camera, DVDs, televisions, cable and satellite and terrestrial television broadcasting, certain websites, and application specific integrated circuits (“chips”); factually, Plaintiffs stake the claim as inventors of “digital zoom,” a feature present on most if not all video capture devices. Defendant Proskauer Rose LLP, a New York law firm, was recipients of disclosures regarding the Inventions through Proskauer partner, Christopher C. Wheeler. Several weeks later, Proskauer represented that purported partners, Defendants Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond A. Joao, would secure patents for the Inventions. Simultaneously, Rubenstein was also counsel to MPEG LA LLC, one of the largest competitors and benefactors of the Inventions. In fact, Petitioners allege that Rubenstein was part of a scheme to sabotage the Inventions so as to preserve and benefit MPEG LA LLC.

BASES FOR REOPENING

Standard of Review

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 60(b)(6) allows a party to seek relief from a final judgment for any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment. The Third Circuit “has consistently held that the Rule 60(b) ground for relief from judgment provides for extraordinary relief and may only be invoked upon a showing of exceptional circumstances” Coltec Indus., Inc. v. Hobgood, 280 F.3d 262, 273 (3d Cir. 2002) (see also, e.g., Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) where the court stated “[O]ur cases have required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60(b)(6) to show ‘extraordinary circumstances’ justifying the reopening of a final judgment.”); Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (1950), Stradley v. Cortez, 518 F.2d 488, 493 (3d Cir.1975). Notwithstanding that, in some instances, Plaintiffs original pleadings may be facially defective under FRCP Rule 8(a) and Rule 12(b), Plaintiffs argue that enough facts are plainly and simply pled to identify the who, what, where, when, and how of the allegations that sufficiently state claims that will become more fully evident through discovery; this Court, simply, must allow discovery to take place.

Exceptional Circumstances

On October 3, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal of the District Court’s Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. (08-cv-4873, CA2 NY, filed October 3, 2008). That just after filing such appeal, Plaintiffs, and on January 14, 2009, as movants, filed a 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”), attached herein as Exhibit A; Cahill was a Respondent in the Second Circuit appeal and a Defendant in the District Court case. Whereby, on January 27, 2009, the Cahill complaint was immediately dismissed by Special Counsel Martin R. Gold (“Gold”), also a Respondent in the Second Circuit appeal and a Defendant herein, attached as Exhibit B. On May 13, 2009, the First Department Court denied movants motion in a decision rendered by, among others, Hon. Richard T. Andrias and Hon. David B. Saxe, attached herein as Exhibit C; Hon. Andrias and Hon. Saxe were both Respondents in the Second Circuit appeal and Defendants herein. Praying for relief of conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, on May 22, 2009, Plaintiffs moved the First Department Court for an order vacating the Cahill disposition by Respondent Gold and the denied motion rendered by Respondents Hon. Andrias and Hon. Saxe, attached herein as Exhibit D. The First Department Court summarily denied such motion on October 28, 2009, attached herein as Exhibit E.

Similar Pattern of Racketeering

If it were not for the actions of the above Respondents (Defendants in this Court’s 07-cv-11196), Plaintiffs would not be availing the Court for a Motion to Reopen, but since their incomprehensible actions gives the situation exceptional substance to support Plaintiffs’ original cause of action in 07-cv-11196, civil racketeering as evidenced by Exhibit B and Exhibit C, Plaintiffs must respectfully ask this Court to grant this prayer for relief.

CAUSES OF ACTION AND DEFENDANTS

Causes of Action

Should this Court grant this prayer for relief, Plaintiffs move to re-open the case based solely on two federal causes of action in the original complaint: violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (which this Court likened to our direct constitutional claims in its Order and Opinion) and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; various supplemental claims and new defendants may also be included in any Amended Complaint.

Defendants

Plaintiffs move to reopen the case as to only the following defendants in the original complaint:
Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Thomas J. Cahill, in his official and individual capacity, Paul Curran in his official and individual capacity, Martin R. Gold in his official and individual capacity , Hon. Richard T. Andrias in his official and individual capacity, Hon. David B. Saxe in his official and individual capacity, Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Lawrence DiGiovanna in his official and individual capacity, Diana Maxfield Kearse in her official and individual capacity, James E. Peltzer in his official and individual capacity, Steven C. Krane in his official and individual capacity, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breistone LLP, Lewis S. Meltzer, Raymond A. Joao, Foley Lardner LLP, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Steven C. Becker, The Florida Bar, Lorraine Christine Hoffman in her official and individual capacity, Eric Turner in his official and individual capacity, John Anthony Boggs in his official and individual capacity, Kenneth Marvin in his official and individual capacity, Virginia State Bar, Andrew H. Goodman in his official and individual capacity, Noel Sengel in her official and individual capacity, Mary W. Martelino in her official and individual capacity, and John Does.

Causative Relationships of the Above Defendants

That the exceptional circumstances inherent in filing this Motion to Reopen are limited strictly to Defendants Cahill, Gold, Hon. Andrias, and Hon. Saxe, may it please the Court, their actions are the expressions of these Defendants as agents that cause incomprehensible actions, to wit, the protection of Defendants Proskauer Rose LLP, Kenneth Rubenstein, Meltzer Lippe Golstein & Breitsone LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Foley Lardner LLP, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Steven C. Becker, and their respective respondeats superior who neglected to supervise their actions, in the sabotage of Plaintiffs backbone, enabling video and imaging technologies for the benefit of MPEG LA LLC. That in their collusion to protect the above named Defendants and continue to block Plaintiffs’ Inventions for the benefit of MPEG LA LLC, Defendants New York State Actors, Florida Bar Defendants, and the Virginia Bar Defendants similarly undertook such actions as agents of the aforementioned Defendants that cause incomprehensible actions, to wit, the protection of Defendants Proskauer Rose LLP, Kenneth Rubenstein, Meltzer Lippe Golstein & Breitsone LLP, Raymond A. Joao, Foley Lardner LLP, William J. Dick, Douglas A. Boehm, Steven C. Becker, and their respective respondeats superior who neglected to supervise their actions, in the sabotage of Plaintiffs backbone, enabling video and imaging technologies for the benefit of MPEG LA LLC.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN THE REPRESENTATION OF THE STATE ACTORS BY

THE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

As the “People's Lawyer,” the Office of the Attorney General (“AG”) serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens of New York, its organizations and its natural resources. In its role as the State's chief legal counsel, the AG not only advises the Executive branch of State government, but also defends actions and proceedings on behalf of the State1. As it relates to the instant Motion to Reopen, this Court cannot allow the AG to act on behalf of the State Defendants in neither their official capacity nor individual capacity as by its self proclaimed mandate above, “People’s Lawyer” vis`-a-vis State’s Chief Legal counsel, strongly suggests a incomprehensible conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety when no mention is made of an ethical barrier between different departments of the AG’s office to avoid conflicts of interest and appearances of impropriety, in complete separation of such bilateral functions. Where even in their reply papers, should the AG plead the existence of such a separation of interests (“People’s Lawyer vis`-a-vis State’s Chief Legal counsel) their still exists such a conflict and impropriety. After a multiplicity of complaints filed with the AG, and through several administrations, requesting that the AG should criminally prosecute such lawyers, law firms, and public officers, for harming the “People” (in this case Plaintiffs who seek the fruits of their labor to create the Inventions), instead the AG turns around and represents these same individuals complained of. Accordingly, this Court, however, must now disqualify the AG from any representation of the State Defendants in their official and individual capacities as a result of these conflicts of interests and appearances of impropriety.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs move for a reopening of the action and relief from the Court's August 8, 2008 Opinion and Order whereby the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and a disqualification of the AG’s office in representing the New York State Actors, else Plaintiffs are deprived of rights, powers, or privileges in this action..
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 11th day of October 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

John W. Fried, Esq. - 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

CLICK BELOW TO SEE EXHIBITS

Click Here to See the Filed Iviewit Motion to Reopen, with Exhibits

Letter From Iviewit.tv Folks Re: Rigging Elections - (CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY)

And be sure to see their website www.Iviewit.tv Here's the letter: New legislation that election rigging carries a penalty of treason against the country, city or state that it is committed in should prevent this.......MORE....

The death penalty or 25 to life will help prevent much of this. There can be no democracy with election fraud and from looking at the effects of election fraud from Bush we all can learn two things, it can be the worst thing for the world as a whole and the Supreme Court of the United States picked the worst, most dishonest, most dangerous to civil rights, most laughed at by foreign nations President ever.

All of this country’s current mess and New York’s alike has been created by election fraud, committed by lawyers, judges, politicians and those who think they are above the law which has thus lowered citizen confidence in a government run by schmucks and war mongering criminals who gained power through corrupt elections.

If it continues, the citizens will soon revolt on the government, as this blog proves and those who were above the law will be stomped to death by the people. History is littered with dead corrupt government employees at all levels that have the boot print of the people smashed upon their heads.

Lace up New York. A final word that may help increase integrity with the public is conduct voting with a mass of checks and balances, using the highest tech and lowest tech methods to count votes and preserve those records for checking later in the event a dispute arises later.

Everyone who votes should have record of their vote and be required to send a copy of their record in a prepaid envelope. When electronic records are created, a full print record for every digital entry should be mandated. Counting should be digital at first, with a full auditing by hand count that should follow to verify the results in time. Penalties of voting fraud by both citizen and government officials should be beyond hefty.

The vote is the most sacred part of a citizen’s rights in a democracy, from the highest public office to the lowest, it must be protected or else we will be in the mess our country and states are now in, where government has been stolen and run amuck where government officials lie, change laws to allow human torture, churn legal cases, pardon felons condemning covert CIA agents, go to war on falsified propaganda and fraudulent papers, allow for perjuring Attorney General’s, etc..

What this country and New York et. al. need is law and order and that starts with strict election laws at every level and more damning penalties for violating them, not less. The fact that this country is pretty convinced that fraud occurred in the Presidential election and was aided and abetted by the legal community sends the worst signal to the People in the history of the country. If I had esq. after my name, I certainly would begin fearing the backlash and start selling insurance.

by Eliot Bernstein - http://www.iviewit.tv/

Court Overhaul Begins: Attorney Disciplinary Chief Counsel Cahill First to Go...CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY

Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the First Department Attorney Disciplinary Committee, was summoned to a meeting with New York State Office of Court Administration officials on Tuesday, July 17, 2007. He was told to bring along his First Deputy Chief Counsel, Sherry K. Cohen, sources say.


The two top lawyers at the State office charged with overseeing attorney ethics in the Bronx and Manhattan sat, uncomfortably, through most of the day at various high-level conferences. In the end, it was made clear that immediate changes were being made at their Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Changes that didn't necessarily include them.

Two days later, on Thursday, July 19th, Mr. Cahill called a staff meeting where he said that he had "good news." He first announced that he had a new grandchild, and then added that he had decided to resign. He was reportedly delighted to be "… one of the few who is leaving under his own steam." Sources say he indicated that he was hoping to stay on through the end of August but was awaiting 1st Department Presiding Justice Jonathan Lippman's decision on the actual date of his final day.

On Friday, Mr. Cahill began referring to his departure as "retirement."

Tom Cahill's departure comes shortly after reporters began asking questions about an alleged cover up concerning the forced resignation of a young employee at the First Department Committee on Character and Fitness (CCF). That incident reportedly involved Mr. Cahill and Ms. Cohen at the Disciplinary Committee, and the CCF's boss Sarah Josephine Hamilton and Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, then state Appellate Division Chief Clerk, and who is now the Chief Clerk for the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

One insider says that the complaints against Cahill and Cohen had "…become overwhelmingly voluminous, and simply too much to continue ignoring..." The pair had been accused of selectively implementing the politically fueled and widespread practice of indefinitely delaying or white-washing certain disciplinary investigations. "Cahill and Cohen made up their own rules," according to the insider.

One such complaint involved Thomas Cahill and the Proskauer Rose law firm, and which has been "pending" since February of 2003. The Cahill Proskauer Complaint remains a troubling thorn at the highest levels of the New York State Office of Court Administration, and one which is a high priority for the new State Chief Administrative Judge, the Honorable Ann T. Pfau.

The Cahill Proskauer issue also became a hot topic in Washington, D.C. in early 2007 at the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee and the U.S. Department of Commerce (The United States Patent and Trademark Office). And it has specifically caught the attention of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, and U.S. House Representatives John D. Dingell and Nita Lowey.

The Cahill Proskauer Scandal involves many allegations: the alleged theft by Proskauer of numerous U.S. Patents from their own client; claimed losses of 17 billion dollars; and the March, 2005 bombing in Boynton Beach, Florida of the inventor-client-complainant's family mini-van.

It is alleged that Mr. Cahill masterminded the scheme to indefinitely delay complaints against Proskauer Rose, himself, and former New York State Bar Association President and Proskauer partner Steven C. Krane, Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein, chief counsel for MPEGLA, and Raymond Joao of Yonkers. It is also alleged that attorney Steven C. Krane initially interceded, with Mr. Cahill's knowledge and consent, in handling disciplinary complaints involving himself at the same time he was associated with the 1st Department in Manhattan.

Attorney Krane's conflicts were exposed when officials from the "Iviewit" company contacted Katherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who contradicted Cahill's statements and Krane's written denial of his 1st Dept roles. Ms. O'Hagan Wolfe advised that she was, in fact, on a Committee at the 1st Dept with both Cahill and Krane and that they even had a meeting that same night.

The various Cahill Proskauer issues bounced around under the public radar screen at the Court of Appeals in Albany and were ultimately transferred from the 1st Department to the 2nd Department in Brooklyn. This was done after 5 justices of the 1st Dept ruled unanimously to investigate Krane, Rubenstein and Joao for conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety after their review of the 1st Department complaint.

The Cahill inquiry is apparently "still pending" under attorney Martin R. Gold who, insiders say, was directed to "sit on it…forever."

Earlier this year, FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. assigned additional agents to the Public Integrity/Corruption squad at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, and where agents have been actively conducting interviews.

The New York Law Journal will formally announce Mr. Cahill's departure next week.

For more information regarding the Cahill Proskauer story, see: http://www.iviewit.tv


Copyright (c) 2007 Frank Brady

Iviewit Shows Federal Court Exceptional Circumstances

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN, INDIVIDUALLY and P. STEPHEN LAMONT

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

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.

REOPEN OPPOSITIONS

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.

STANDARDS OF PLEADING

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

CONCLUSION

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

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

Iviewit Patentgate Fraud Jumps Into Anderson Appeal

09-5059-CV
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY, Defendants-Appellees

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038

P. Stephen Lamont, individually, and on behalf of shareholders of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. respectfully moves this Court for leave to file an Amicus Curiae Brief in the instant appeal of Christine C. Anderson v. Thomas J. Cahill, et al. (CA2 Docket No. 09-509-cv, filed November 25, 2009). Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption. Additionally, Amicus Curiae have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the relief requested in instant appeal herein, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications.

Date: June 22, 2010

Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
(914) 217-0038

*******************************************
09-5059-CV

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit


CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,
--v--
THOMAS J. CAHILL, SHERRY K. COHEN, and DAVID SPOKONY,

Defendants-Appellees

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

P. STEPHEN LAMONT, PRO SE
35 LOCUST AVENUE, RYE, NEW YORK 10580
(914) 217-0038

Table of Contents

IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

INTEREST IN THE CASE
STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
ARGUMENT
A. DISTRICT COURT’S RELIANCE ON ROOKER-FELDMAN DOCTRINE

B. IMMUNITY ANALYSIS WITHIN THE ORDER
1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief

2. Explicit §5 Override
3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity

CONCLUSION

Table of Authorities

Cases

Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985) 9
District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983) 7
Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974) 8 -- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908) 8
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) 7
Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997) 9
Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972) 9 -- U.S.C. 28 §1331 6

Constitutional Provisions

§5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 7, 8 -- Eleventh Amendment 7, 8

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1291 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1254(1) 6 -- 28 U.S.C. §1331 6 -- U.S.C. 42 § 1983 9

IDENTIFICATION OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

The Amicus Curiae parties in this instant action are Plaintiffs, Plaintiff-Appellants, and Petitioners in the following cases:

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (07-cv-11196, S.D.N.Y filed December 12, 2007), Opinion and Order filed August 8, 2008 granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Bernstein, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (08-cv-4873, CA2 NY, filed October 3, 2008), Opinion and Order filed January 5, 2010 dismissing appeal, Opinion and Order filed January 22, 2010 denying Motion for Reconsideration.

Lamont, et al v. Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, et al. (Docket No. _____________, U.S., filed April 22, 2010).

INTEREST IN THE CASE

Amicus Curiae clearly have an interest relating to the “property or transaction which is the subject of the appeal,” i.e., “retaliatory discharge on account of plaintiff’s complaints of whitewashing and corruption,” or, in the case of Amicus Curiae, the sabotage of intellectual property and the subsequent unpaid royalties resulting from whitewashing and corruption.
Additionally, Amicus Curiae, have both an organizational and a representative interest in this litigation of the issues that are the subject of this appeal, to wit, whitewashing and corruption. From an organizational standpoint, a principle function of Amicus Curiae’s existence is to engage in business activity whereby original content creators and others would execute license agreements to benefit from the value propositions of the Inventions, and pay royalties for such non-exclusive use. Accordingly, Amicus Curiae have an interest in seeing that conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints are adjudicated along the lines of the instant appeal, especially when the United States Patent and Trademark Office has signaled that “what’s going on in your New York complaints,” or words to that effect, prior to giving Amicus Curiae the relief necessary to continue their patent applications. Amicus Curiae’s interests may not be adequately represented by Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson. Thus, Amicus Curiae’s interests, as a practical matter, may be impaired or impeded by its inability to protect these interests without supporting the appeal, particularly given the fact that an adverse ruling by the Court could result in the continuation of the patent sabotage conspiracy, countless unpaid royalties to Amicus Curiae, and the resultant unwillingness of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to issue patents to Amicus Curiae based on the inventions. It remains at best uncertain whether the current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson’s request for relief will encompass all possible issues related to the whitewashing and corruption in hearing attorney disciplinary complaints. It is much more likely that current Plaintiff-Appellant Anderson in this case will only develop the limited issues pertaining to her individual situation and therefore only seek the relief that would provide her individual remedy. Amicus Curiae will bring to the case a variety of fact patterns involving both conspiracies to whitewash attorney disciplinary complaints and the occurrences of civil racketeering among the same group of Defendants, in part; thus, Amicus Curiae’s support sharpens the argument on both sides and provides the Court with a more useful framework of advocacy from which to issue its decision.

STATEMENT OF THE BASIS FOR JURISDICTION

The District Court had jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1331, and issued its Opinion and Order on August 8, 2008. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on August 18, 2008, and the District Court denied the Motion on August 19, 2008. A Notice of Appeal was filed on September 4, 2008, and the Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 § 1291. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on January 5, 2010. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed on January 12, 2010, and the Court of Appeals issued its final judgment on January 22, 2010. A Petition for a Writ of Certiorari was filed on April 22, 2010, and the United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction under U.S.C. 28 §1254(1).

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. Is a fundamental underpinning of Rooker-Feldman doctrine that the proper forum to appeal State court decisions is in State court (Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005))?

2. Does §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grant Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment, and if so, does this Amendment abrogate the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment?

3. Is the purpose behind the enactment of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to secure the protection of Plaintiff-Appellant’s constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law?

ARGUMENT

Amicus Curiae maintain the following:

A. District Court’s Reliance on Rooker-Feldman Doctrine - In Amicus Curiae’s proceedings, the District Court invoked the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a means to support its Order in granting Amicus Curiae’s Respondents’ Motions to Dismiss. A recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005), makes clear that claim preclusion is a separate doctrine entirely. Exxon stipulates the requisite elements that must be met for the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to apply (See also District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 US. 462,483 n. 16 (1983)). None of the factors of Exxon are present in the instant appeal; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine simply does not apply.
B. Immunity Analysis within the Order Regarding Immunity, Amicus Curiae’s Complaint, Amended Complaint, Opposition Memorandums, Appellant Brief, and Petition for a Writ of Certiorari pray for injunctive relief; this was clearly stated.

1. Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Suits for Declaratory or Injunctive Relief - The District Court’s bald assertion that in Amicus Curiae’s proceedings the Complaint lacked any foundation upon which the District Court can grant legal relief is clearly erroneous. The Eleventh Amendment does not preclude suit against State officers for the kind of injunctive and declaratory relief at issue here. If a State official acts in contravention of the Constitution, pursuant to an unconstitutional statute, or in a manner that violates an individual's constitutionally protected rights, suit to enjoin the offending behavior is proper and does not run afoul of a State's sovereign immunity. (See Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123, 160 (1908), Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651 (1974)). Additionally, Ex Parte Young and Edelman v. Jordan provide that the District Court could have provided retroactive monetary relief against an officer sued in his individual capacity, as bringing an action against an officer in his individual capacity does not implicate State sovereignty.

2. Explicit §5 Override - §5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of that Amendment; courts have recognized that this new Amendment, again a consensus of the people, abrogates the immunity provided by the Eleventh Amendment. In Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142, 87 L.Ed.2d 171 (1985), this Court said that Congress can use its Fourteenth Amendment power to override a State's Eleventh Amendment protection.

3. The District Court’s Order Cannot Claim Judicial and Qualified Immunity. - Furthermore, in their proceedings, the District Court cannot allow Amicus Curiae’s Respondents to use the guise of State authority as a license for violating Amicus-Curiae’s constitutional rights. Indeed, the entire purpose behind the enactment of U.S.C. 42 § 1983 was to secure the protection of individuals' constitutional rights against infringement by State governments and State actors who purportedly act under the authority of State law; Section 1983 creates a private cause of action for damages (as well as injunctive relief) against those "persons" responsible for the deprivation (See Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225,238-39 (1972)).
In Kostok v. Thomas, 105 F.3d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1997), the court determined that declaratory and prospective injunctive relief are available, and that the Plaintiff-Appellants' claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 need not be dismissed.

CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, Amicus Curaie respectfully supports that this Court reverse the judgment entered herein, with a finding of fact in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant; or if the Court does not feel that it would be justified by the facts in so doing that it should remand the case for a fair and impartial trial before an unprejudiced jury, on proper evidence, and under correct instructions as the law may deem just and proper.

Date: June 22, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: (914) 217-0038

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH F.R.A.P. RULE 32(a)(7)

The undersigned, P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se, furnishes the following in compliance with F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7): I hereby certify that this brief conforms to the rules contained in F.R.A.P Rule 32(a)(7) for a brief produced with a proportionally spaced font. The length of this brief is 1365 words.

P. Stephen Lamont, Pro Se
Attorney for Amicus Curiae
35 Locust Avenue, Rye, N.Y. 10580
Tel.: 914) 217-0038