Exhibit 1 - Letter to Glenn Fine

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

P. Stephen Lamont

Former Chief Executive Officer (Acting)

and

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder and Inventor

By Facsimile and Electronic Mail

April 20, 2007

The Honorable Glenn Fine

Inspector General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

and

Lonnie Davis

Investigations Field Office

United States Department of Justice - Office of the Inspector General

510 Shotgun Road, Suite 200

Sunrise, FL 33326 Voice

Re: Affirmed Joint and Several Complaint Against the Federal Bureau of Investigation, West Palm Beach, Fla. Office and its Special Agents and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida.

Dear The Honorable Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Glenn Fine and all other Gentleman and Gentlewoman involved in this communication,

PREFACE

By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former CEO (Acting) of, as well as a significant shareholder in, Iviewit Holdings, Inc., a privately held Delaware corporation, and its subsidiaries, affiliates and related parties (collectively “Iviewit”) with more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, and I appallingly write at the cross current, by and between the Bureau Office and other parties described below, pattern of frauds, deceits, and misrepresentations that run so wide and so deep that it tears at the very fabric of what has become to be know as free commerce in this country, and, in the fact that it pertains to inventors rights, tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States more fully described below. I write to you with my co-author, Eliot I. Bernstein, who was factually there throughout all of these events and so has contributed to this document to assure the veracity of the statements and provide credible witness to the events described herein. Mr. Bernstein is the main inventor of the technologies; inventions which he claims to have come from divine origin.

BACKGROUND

On or about 1997, Iviewit’s founder, Eliot I. Bernstein (“Bernstein”), among others (“Inventors”), came upon inventions pertaining to what industry experts have heretofore described as profound shifts from traditional techniques in video and imaging then overlooked in the annals of video and imaging technology. Factually, the main video technology is one of capturing a video frame at a, including but not limited to, 320 by 240 frame size (roughly, ¼ of a display device) at a frame rate of one (1) to infinity frames per second (“fps” and at the twenty four (24) to thirty (30) range commonly referred to as “full frame rates” to those skilled in the art). Moreover, once captured, and in its simplest terms, the scaled frames are then digitized (if necessary), filtered, encoded, and delivered to an agnostic display device and zoomed to a full frame size of, including but not limited to, 1280 by 960 at the full frame rates of 24 to 30 fps. The result is, when combined with other proprietary technologies, high quality video at bandwidths of 56 or more Kbps to 6 Mbps per second, at a surprising seventy five percent (75%) savings in throughput (“bandwidth”) on any digital delivery system such as digital terrestrial, cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a similar 75% savings in storage on mediums such as digital video discs (“DVD’s”) and the hard drives of many consumer electronic devices. Also, these savings result in a 75% decrease in the necessary processing power to encode the video, making parallel processors obsolete and allowing the process of encoding to occur on even a laptop. The video technology opened new markets therefore in both low bandwidth video, as is found on cell phones and the Internet to the other end of the spectrum to high end video such as HDDVD, etc. changing even the way television was viewed, a change from interlacing to the new scaling process, allowing cable companies to increase channel throughput by 75%. Moreover, on the imaging side, the Iviewit inventions are used on almost every digital camera and present screen design and other devices that utilize the feature of “digital zoom”. Furthermore, industry observers who benefited from the Iviewit disclosures have gone on to claim "you could have put 10,000 engineers in a room for 10,000 years and they would never have come up with these ideas…”

Moreover, if these inventions become the subject of say an injunction while investigations are ongoing, it would preclude the use of the technologies while the courts hash these matters out, similar to the case almost brought in the Blackberry matter in recent history. Although dwarfed in comparison, that injunction would have shut Blackberry down to users if not resolved. The results of an injunction of the Iviewit technologies would be catastrophic to the country in that the product recall alone would be devastating to commerce, shutting down video across the Internet, recalling low bandwidth cell phones, recalling digital camera’s with digital zoom, halting the transmission of 75% of cable channels, recalling medical devices that use scaled zoom, recalling technologies on the Hubble Space Telescope and other government uses, such as flight and space simulators, advanced weapons systems, etc. These matters are of tantamount importance to federal and international commerce in countless ways, making the job of resolving the crimes against Iviewit a matter of national security concerns unprecedented in the history of invention.

SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS INVESTIGATED BY BUREAU OFFICE

Moreover, and while grant it I was not a participant during the alleged sabotage and purported theft of the technologies, I found myself leading a company in the midst of a cover up surrounding the following depictions of frauds, deceits, and misrepresentations that run so wide and so deep that it tears at the very fabric of what has become to be know as free commerce in this country, and, in the fact that it pertains to inventors rights, tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.

Initially, and early in my tenure, rumors began swirling around the company with finger pointing and all from Florida to Los Angeles wherein it caught the jet stream and arrived very soon in New York of alleged breaches of confidentiality pertaining to Iviewit technology, transfers of trade secrets, and, even in certain circumstances, the knowing and willful invention fraud by the outright switching of signature pages of patent filings by early patent counsels.

Still further, I submit that at the first disclosures of the inventions, patent counsel, who had spent half a lifetime TRYING to procure technologies for the transmission of full screen, full frame rate video across a variety of transmission networks, always to no avail and who during the Iviewit disclosures may have thought to themselves “[I] missed that,” and “[I] never thought of that,” and “[This] changes everything,” or thoughts to those effects, might have been so fearful that Iviewit would partner with other proprietary technologies across the video value chain and wipe the carefully crafted patent pools he was lead counsel for, off the face of the map, therefore, the Iviewit inventions HAD to be converted to preserve those pools and the royalties, royalties that with these inventions would be worth a trillion plus dollars.

That was the first step, with the second step, through the direct and indirect introductions of Iviewit, with executed confidentiality agreements (“NDA’s”), to hundreds of potential licensees by colleagues of patent counsel mainly from the firm Proskauer and other parties involved in the alleged crimes, being the proliferation of Iviewit disclosures across a wide array of potential licensees and competitors.

Following along, we arrive at the point in the past when the Iviewit inventions had been sabotaged and converted and that everyone had begun to use, paying royalties to patent pools such as MPEGLA, LLC, controlled by Proskauer through their acquisition of control over the pools instantly after gaining disclosure of the invention under attorney client privilege. Instead of the royalties going to the Iviewit inventors they went to, including but not limited to MPEGLA LLC headed by Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer, Rubenstein who simultaneously represented Iviewit, without a China Wall to protect Iviewit, from the obvious conflict. Then the final step of converting the inventions to themselves, and through intentional changes of inventors, creating a second set of similar patents with themselves as inventors and owners, via a corporate shell game that involved multiple, unauthorized, similarly named corporate formations, unauthorized stock swaps and unauthorized asset transfers, which resulted in the core patent applications assigned to entities that may have other shareholders, including but not limited to, the limited liability partnership of Proskauer Rose LLP, the alleged perpetrating patent counsel, perhaps, with a view towards resurrecting the backbone technologies at some future point under the patent pools to share in the split of the patent royalties estimated to be worth trillions of dollars with the Iviewit technologies, that without the patents in the pool they would only be able to siphon legal fees from the patent pool which works on split between patent holders of the pools. Certainly they did not go through such elaborate fraud on the United States, foreign nations and multiple state and federal agencies to get legal fees, while others enjoyed the use and others profited from major splits. In fact, Rubenstein contracted through his former firm another attorney Raymond Anthony Joao, who began a series of patents in his own name, now approximately 90 by Joao’s own claims, many during his tenure as Iviewit patent counsel and many of the inventions he was to be patenting for Iviewit. As Joao and Rubenstein took disclosure from the Iviewit inventors, initially Eliot I. Bernstein, Jeffery Friedstein, Jude Rosario and Zakirul Shirajee, they ditched the ones signed by the inventors to replace them with meaningless patents with myriads of mistakes and missing disclosures, all in violation of Title 18 & 35 of the Code and many others, all in violation of their oaths before the United States Patent & Trademark Office, oaths under G-d. In fact, Proskauer billed endlessly for Copyrights of the source codes, that now appear on virtually every digital imaging and video hardware and software product (i.e. Windows Media bundled into the Operating System, Real, Quicktime, Media Encoder, Digital Video Camera’s, Camcorders, Space Telescopes, Medical Imaging Devices, Space Simulators, Gaming, etc.) and somehow failed to file those Copyrights at all, despite taking thousands of pages of source code to be Copyrighted, again all in violation of multiple Title 18 Code violations.

Upon learning of Joao’s patenting ideas that looked similar to their own, Proskauer immediately replaced Joao, who they claimed they were investigating, replaced by one William J. Dick, Esq. of the law firm Foley and Lardner. It was unbeknownst at the time that Dick had worked to attempt to steal patents with Proskauer referred Iviewit President, Brian Utley and Proskauer lawyer, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq. in the past from other businesses immediately prior to undertaking work for Iviewit. Wheeler, the first Proskauer partner to witness the inventions and retain the project for Proskauer (recently convicted of a Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury charge in the state of Florida) was what appears the ringleader in stealing inventions with Dick and Utley from a business man, Monte Friedkin, of Diamond Turf Equipment out of Florida. Utley had been President of the company and had contracted Dick (his former IBM patent buddy) to write patents in his name and place them into a company incorporated by Wheeler to the detriment of Friedkin. In other words they walked the patents and intellectual properties Utley was working on, out of Friedkin’s business and into a company they owned that Friedkin had no interest or idea about, similar to the scam attempted at Iviewit, showing a criminal enterprise with a history. Of course, Utley, Wheeler and Dick, all failed to list this small piece of crime on their resume’s and failed to disclose it to shareholders, institutional investors, including the SBA, or management.

A close inspection of the depositions of Rubenstein, Wheeler and Utley, in a civil case involving the fraudulent companies in Palm Beach County, instigated by Proskauer against a fraudulent Iviewit company set up by Proskauer to harbor the stolen patents, in a case titled Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit (Case #CA 01-04671AB also cited as CL 01-04671AB in some pleadings, perhaps not even the original filing no. In the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County Florida, Judge Jorge Labarga, not believed to be the original Judge in the matter), which reveals this prior crime against Friedkin and then illustrates hundreds of instances of perjury and other crimes involving that Court and the lawyers from Proskauer. Upon discovering the two legal actions, which also were being represented by counsel not retained by the legitimate companies or the management, Iviewit retained counsel by calling Caroline Prochotska Rogers (“Rogers”) who retained Stephen Selz, Esq. (“Selz”) of Florida to investigate and take over the cases. Rogers, also retained counsel for the federal bankruptcy action but that action was abandoned instantly by the parties filing the involuntary for what appeared at the time a mistake in the company they filed against, which they did not have any employment or other contracts with. Later it would be learned that they filed against that company because it too was a fraudulent company harboring stolen patents.

Upon taking over the civil billing case, a counter complaint was filed, rejected by Labarga, although it evidenced that the Proskauer lawyers involved in the case before him were possibly involved in a far greater crime of fraud on the United States. Labarga denied due process at every turn including trying to limit the case to the billing case filed by Proskauer, refusing to hear the evidence that the guys suing were involved in possible crimes to steal patents and fraud the United States. Labarga stated that the prior counsel we did not know was representing us initially had waived our rights to file pretty much anything and had submitted a witness list for Iviewit that included all the criminals??? Yet, Labarga was forced to allow Iviewit to depose several of the Proskauer partners, who under deposition committed multiple perjuries that contradicted prior written statements to the Court and confounded them so much in deposition, that Rubenstein and Wheeler fled their own depositions at their firms law suit, as evidence was laid on the table refuting their claims of knowing nothing about the patents, inventors or inventions. Rubenstein, listed as patent counsel, investor (through a small share given to Proskauer), on the Board of Directors, in all business plans for investment, including a Private Placement Memorandums distributed by Wachovia Securities and sent for investment and audit to the SBA, was so brazen that that Court was in his pocket, that he wrote Labarga a sworn statement claiming he never heard of Bernstein, the Iviewit companies and was being harassed. That he never billed for services and did not want to be deposed as he feared being harassed. One look at Rubenstein’s deposition where letters from Warner Bros. executives claimed they checked with Rubenstein who opined favorably on the Iviewit inventions and multiple billings where shown him with entries for a one Kenneth Rubenstein, on calls with investors Wayne Huizenga, Warner Bros. and hosts of other meetings and entries with his name and ones sees why he next fled from the deposition refusing to answer further questions.

Under deposition, both Rubenstein and Wheeler refused to answer direct deposition questions, in direct opposition to law, citing to take it up with the Judge and we would see who he favored. Rubenstein and Wheeler were ordered by the court to return for depositions to answer the questions they refused at the first deposition but what happened on the way to trial is matter of injustice, similar to what happened on the way to the USPTO, that will be backbone evidence to the DOJ OIG investigation and the FBI IA investigations of these matters and to just what happened in that most felonious civil court, headed by Judge Jorge Labarga who has since continued to fail his oath to report the counter complaints claims of crimes against the government, with full supporting evidence in hand to the proper authorities, dismally failing his judicial canons as reported to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, whose investigator should also be investigated for failure to open his eyes to evidence before him. Further, one asks, why later those same crimes exposed in mass against the government to the West Palm Beach Office of the FBI, were not prosecuted when taken by the FBI to the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, along with all the other crimes they were apprised of and given evidence in support of and which they then led Iviewit to believe they were investigating until April 17, 2007.

SPECIFIC INVLOVEMENT BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - LONG BEACH CALIFORNIA OFFICE: 2001-2002

After first learning of the possibility of a much larger fraud via an Arthur Andersen audit on behalf of Iviewit investor Crossbow Ventures, whose funds were two thirds Small Business Administration SBIC loans (making the SBA the largest holder of Iviewit stock) and whereby the audit found evidence that patents were going into false inventors names and that their was a possibility of identically named companies with missing books and stock certificates. In response to the that, the company was blown apart by the lawyers and document shredding was rampant, when Utley came to California and confronted inventor Bernstein, who was working in the advanced technology division of Warner Bros. where he recently opened offices within their building, with an ultimatum of shutting up about the findings or watching his and his family’s back when he returned to Boca Raton, Fl. Part of the problem for the conspirators at the time was the accidental acquisition by, including but not limited to, Eliot I. Bernstein, James F. Armstrong and Jennifer Kluge, from Brian Utley whereby evidence was found of two sets of patents which were forcefully extracted from Utley. These contained fragmented evidence including evidence of patents where Brian Utley was like the sole, soulless, inventor of Zoom and Pan on a Digital Camera, Zoom and Pan Imaging Applet and had added himself to what appeared other patents. These led to shareholder and management taped meetings with Foley and Lardner and Proskauer attorneys to address these issues and this is where these attorneys, knowing the jiggy was up began attempts of destroying Iviewit and Bernstein. Problem for Bernstein was that he already had notified many people of the scam and widely distributed the evidence obtained thus far. Bernstein thus contacted his wife who instantly fled Florida leaving behind their worldly possessions, ripping their children from school and family, for the first of four times now to hide from the conspirators, protect their children and build a case for federal and state investigators.

Another part of the immediate problem was that evidence surfaced of a deal between the fraudulent Iviewit companies and Enron’s Broadband Division, in the now infamous Enron/Blockbuster Deal which due to Enron’s booking of hundreds of millions of dollars ahead of earning it, on a new technology for broadband internet distribution of movies, based on technologies almost stolen from Iviewit which are the true cause of the collapse of Enron. All evidence of this had to be destroyed by the law firms who had perpetrated the crimes and this may have been the cause of the massive shredding party that took place by Andersen for Enron, once it was learned that the jiggy was up and investigations could begin instantly. In fact, the DOJ OIG would be served well to pursue the Enron broadband division that has recently surfaced for federal prosecution again, for a third time, with an eye for Iviewit’s involvement in the collapse. Without the technologies in hand the plot was foiled and with public eye upon them, Enron could not risk attempting to use the stolen technologies to make the revenues and thus had to abandon the project. Problem for Enron was they counted the chickens before hatching and had already booked the revenue falsely.

Bernstein then contacted Harry I. Moatz of the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline that registered attorneys before his federal patent bar were violating their rules and perhaps committing fraud not only against Iviewit but directly against the USPTO and other Commerce Department divisions. Bernstein had called Moatz initially to report that Raymond Joao was writing patents into his own name for inventions that were his clients who had retained him. Bernstein then contacted the Long Beach, California Federal Bureau of Investigation who took preliminary information regarding the matters and directed Bernstein to file a complaint against Utley for terrorist threats against his life and his family’s lives with local PD, which Bernstein ultimately did on May 13, 2002 with the County of Los Angeles – Sheriff’s Department – File No. 402—2-59-1799-339.

Bernstein, upon discovering further that the companies were involved in a federal bankruptcy in Florida (Case No. 01-33407-BKC-SHF Inv Chap 11 in the Southern District of Florida) and the law suit in civil court in Proskauer v. Iviewit discussed above, both previously unbeknownst to exist by shareholders or management of the legitimate companies, built his case from California and then moved to Florida to the lions den or Labarga’s court and the Bankruptcy Court, believing that justice would be had. Both actions filed in Florida were instigated by Proskauer and Proskauer referred management Utley, Michael Reale and an entity RYJO, Inc. (“RYJO”). RYJO a subcontractor under a strategic alliance structured by Proskauer, between Iviewit and Real 3D, Inc. (“R3D”) a client of theirs, R3D owned 70% by Lockheed Martin, 20% by Silicon Graphics Inc., and 10% by Intel, later wholly acquired by Intel and a third party necessary with management to file an involuntary. With new counsel relieving dirty counsel, those acting without authority, now replaced by counsel retained by the legitimate companies, Bernstein went back to Florida to pursue his rights. It is presumed that once Proskauer and Foley and Lardner knew the evidence was taken from Utley and disseminated widely they tried to instantly get rid of the evidence of the fraudulent companies but first had a plan to get the stolen intellectual properties out. Thus, when combined, the billing case that they thought nobody would ever discover was in court and bankruptcy, the companies could do the following: (i) Proskauer would sue fraudulent companies ABC which harbored the stolen patents with a large unpaid bill (ii) this would make them the largest creditor and thus entitled in a bankruptcy to majority of the company and the stolen patents and (iii) with Utley, RYJO and Reale instigating the bankruptcy they would be the remaining benefactors, it would all look clean to the Courts, almost invisible and they would walk off with the stolen assets. They never figured that Bernstein would be tipped off to this in the midst of the process and cause a nightmare that never awakens. From this point, these lawyers, whose assets are at risk entirely in their partnerships knew that the only way to block due process was brute force denial and violation of every oath as lawyers and every oath of every public office they would have to violate in conflict to block any chance of Iviewit’s success. With the revenues from the technologies converted to their pools and already generating profits in billions of dollars since invention, it would take either a continuous corruption of any legal or prosecutorial agency the complaints went or easier that with a Presidential top down denial of due process and procedure, through various Presidential appointments in key positions to block it top down. We are asking the DOJ OIG to investigate for any possible connection to election fraud or payola to politicians capable of planting individuals to block Iviewit at each of these agencies. While we reserve the right to file again with more evidence of these claims, at this point we will await the results of your offices investigation into these matters to determine exactly how high the denial of due process was extended and whom was involved.

SPECIFIC INVLOVEMENT BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE: JANUARY 2003 TO MARCH 2007

By and by, Bernstein, on or about January 2003 contacted the West Palm Beach Florida Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation located at 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and began to describe, through oral, facsimile and personal interviews what individuals close to Iviewit have since described as the Greatest Patent Story Ever Told or The Greatest Crime Ever Bungled. Moreover, the West Palm Beach Florida Office agent that received these allegations pertaining to Iviewit and Bernstein was Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi (“Lucchesi”). Interested, but skeptical at first, Luchessi gave Bernstein audience at the West Palm Beach Office, and in one particular instance, Bernstein was accompanied by an Iviewit retained attorney, Mark W. Gaffney, a former staff attorney in the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (“Gaffney”), who despite Lucchesi’s initial attempts to characterize Iviewit’s and Bernstein’s claims as civil matters not investigated by the Bureau Office, Gaffney recited instances of case law after case law[12], that indicated the allegations in question were in fact crimes, many covered under Title 18 of the United States Code[13], all under the FBI’s jurisdiction. Convinced, Luchessi, requested more documentation and evidence, and Bernstein complied by submitting thousands of pages of documentation, many originals upon request of Luchessi, pertaining to the claims in question and CD ROM libraries.

Furthermore, a follow-up meeting to further “teach the case” to Luchessi was scheduled for on or about August 2004 at the Bureau Office in West Palm Beach, Fla.; attendees at this meeting were Luchessi, another FBI special agent specializing in crimes committed by law firms brought in to aid the investigations by Lucchesi, Bernstein, and myself wherein Bernstein, now fully versed in the intricacies of the United States Code, recited a litany of crimes, many falling under the critical Title 18, the very instances, upon information and belief, the Department of Justice charges the West Palm Beach Bureau Office with investigating.

More specifically, in the above series of allegations, Iviewit was confident that the West Palm Beach Bureau Office would find a reasonable certainty that, among others, Messrs. Kenneth Rubenstein (“Rubenstein”), Raymond A. Joao (“Joao”), William J. Dick (“Dick”), Steven Becker, and Douglas Boehm, all present or former members of the distinguished Bar of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), designed and executed, either for themselves or others similarly situated, the deceptions, improprieties, and, even in certain circumstances, outright misappropriation by the disingenuous redirection of the disclosed Iviewit techniques by: (i) burying the critical elements of the inventions in patent applications; (ii) allowing the unauthorized use of Iviewit’s inventions under NDA’s without enforcement of said NDA’s; (III) filing patent applications of their own or others based on the Iviewit inventions; (IV) submitting knowingly false statements and falsified documents done with intent to commit fraud on, including but not limited to, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) via mail and facsimile, the European Patent Office (“EPO”), The Japanese Patent Office (“JPO”) and the Korean Patent Office (“KPO”) in violation of international treatises in trade and finally the Iviewit shareholders and inventors.

Further, Lucchesi was also apprised of conflicts of interests and the appearance of impropriety in State Supreme Court cases before attorney disciplinary committees by representatives of Proskauer Rose and others, in a public office corruption case in both Florida and New York.[14] In New York these matters led to Supreme Court of New York Court Ordered investigations of Rubenstein, Joao and Stephen Krane, amongst others, Krane being the former President of the NYSBA. In Florida these crimes elevated to the Florida Supreme Court and involved the President of the Florida Bar, Kelly Overstreet Johnson, caught in conflict with the main accused Christopher Clarke Wheeler’s brother whom she worked for in a small Florida law firm as a direct report to James Wheeler. In Florida another Proskauer partner, Matthew Triggs, was found violating his Supreme Court office with The Florida Bar to defend Christopher Clarke Wheeler his partner while in a blackout period that precluded him from handling any cases before the The Florida Bar. Triggs was also representing Proskauer simultaneously in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case opening up to even more conflicts and violations of his attorney code of ethics governing his conduct in cases before The Florida Bar. These cases are important for the DOJ OIG and FBI IA to investigate as they will be the basis for Iviewit’s claims that the inventor Bernstein has been denied his civil rights to due process and procedure at every legal outlet the case has been turned over to, as the criminals in these matters, due to their legal power and political power have been able to position through conflict to avoid prosecution by infiltrating public offices where complaints have been filed without disclosure. It appears that not only have the civil courts been penetrated as with the Labarga case but the attorney disciplinary processes as illustrated in New York and Florida have been infiltrated and now perhaps the DOJ OIG will find that they have infiltrated federal investigations, as appears may be the case in the West Palm Beach Bureau Office of the FBI that we are asking for review of. In each case of conflict and impropriety found, those even ordered for investigation by the Supreme Court of New Yorkwere shielded from prosecution having not even to put forth a statement to investigators in their defense, all indicative of a top down denial of due process. In fact, cases at the Boca Raton PD were also derailed leading to an IA investigation of the officer that again disappeared without any forward notice to anyone of what transpired. Another recent subterfuge of a Department of Business and Professional Regulation Complaint, deferred by the AICPA mysteriously for lack of investigative funds to the DBPR, has now led to the discovery of possible conflicts of interest in the Governor of Florida, Charlie Christ’s office who has ultimate oversight of the DPBR OIG and whose office is run by Iviewit’s former patent counsel Foley and Lardner and one of the main accused in these matters. In fact, special office position was favored upon Christopher Kise, Senior Counsel to the Governor who was the former Solicitor General at the Florida Supreme Court during Iviewit’s attempt to get justice from that institution to aid in prosecution of its bar members caught in conflict of interest. Strange that Proskauer Rose is found conflicted to the top of The Florida Bar and in a state where they maintain a small Boca Raton real estate office and Foley is found in positions of control at the Florida Supreme Court and now running the Governor’s office and acting as counsel. Christ was also found attempting to appoint yet another Foley and Lardner partner, Kevin Hyde, who declined the position when it was publicly revealed that he was conflicted with Christ. Finally, a partner of Wheeler’s former law firm and the firm may be a possible subject of investigation in these matters also has significant status at the Governor’s office with George LeMieux, Chief of Staff: Mr. LeMieux was the Chief of Staff for the Crist-Kottkamp Campaign and currently serves as Transition Executive Director. He served as the Chief of Staff and Deputy Attorney General for the State of Florida from 2003 through 2006. LeMieux oversaw more than 450 lawyers and 1,300 total staff. LeMieux has also served as a member of the Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart law firm, most recently as a shareholder managing the firm’s litigation practice in the Fort Lauderdale office (same office as Wheeler worked at). Finally, on a Foley and Lardner note, and perhaps subject to these proceedings will be the former Chairman of Foley and Lardner, Michael Grebe who yields perhaps the strongest ability to influence the denial of due process top down through his former role as Chairman of the Republican National Committee (currently under investigation for possible Hatch Act violations in email lost that may have been a back channel for dubious White House correspondences) and the many tentacles than can be tapped in that regard by the RNC, as necessary to block Iviewit politically as needed. Perhaps now, with a wisp of where this is going or has gone, the DOJ OIG may find the answer to why Iviewit, the Shareholders, the United States Government and foreign nations just as the Rolling Stones would say “Can’t Get No Satisfaction” in their attempts at due process and procedure and fair and impartial justice. We will not go so far as to say that the US Attorney’s office for the Southern District of Florida and perhaps their oversight should also be included for investigation for their failure to prosecute the overwhelming evidence and eyewitnesses that risked life and limb to bring this case this far but...

Oh yes, at last, the FBI agents seemed to embark upon a tangent that the evidence of the car bombing “Iraqi Style” of inventor Bernstein’s family’s minivan was somehow a State of Florida matter and that Lucchesi had done nothing with such evidence submitted in regards to the bomb that blew to smithereens three cars next to it, hours before Bernstein, his wife Candice and his three children were to be taking possession of it from an auto body shop. Lucchesi was notified instantly and state fire investigator Rick Lee confirmed that the bombing was intentional and Lee was notified to contact Lucchesi which he stated he was doing, as well as, stating he was also notifying the Florida Fire Marshall. Bernstein requested federal protection from Lucchesi, as any blind man can see by viewing the website homepage images at www.iviewit.tv , that this was not a mere threat, this was a real terrorist action by the real terrorists of democracy and free commerce to silence the main witness against them. I guess, I can’t get no protection may be the next Stones tune, while humorous I can attest that Mr. Bernstein and his wife do not find this to be a matter for joking but yet another reason the DOJ OIG should investigate the civil rights violations uninvestigated by the investigators in charge of the matters at the FBI, of course before they are murdered for trying to expose the largest crime ever committed in the United States, against the United States, foreign nations and private citizens by those who are supposed to be upholding those rights. Perhaps no greater challenge to the integrity of our great nation now sits upon the shoulder of the DOJ OIG and failure at this level is a total failure of democracy and our Constitution, a lead in to Patengate. We pray for your shield.

Much of the information and documentation can be found at the website www.iviewit.tv in the left toolbar under the Supreme Court Exhibit Gallery.

SPECIFIC INVLOVEMENT BY THE BUREAU OFFICE: APRIL 2007

Fast forward to April 16, 2007, when, upon transmitting a facsimile to Lucchesi pertaining to the discovery of fraudulent documents in the Iviewit files at the EPO with a view towards adding this evidence to the file at the Bureau Office in West Palm Beach, Fla., Bernstein came to learn from the caller that Luchessi had “retired” many months prior to, later learned, perhaps as early as October or November 2006; the West Palm Beach office had telephoned Bernstein to complain of a ninety page facsimile sent to fax (561) 833-7970, a number given to Bernstein by Lucchesi for submission of additional evidence, the officer complaining that the fax was interrupting other Bureau Office business such as the receiving of subpoenas. Bernstein asked for a follow up call and Special Agent Joseph Sconzo (“Sconzo”) returned the call and had a substantive discussion of the Iviewit case in the Bureau Office, though Sconzo denied any case ever existed in their files, insisted that no file existed or could be located under a multitude of names searched, no evidence submitted was existent in the office, and no particular disposition ever was made that he could ascertain from their department files and computers. Momentarily stunned, Bernstein recalling the particular representations made by Luchessi, including but not limited to, on or about September 2004 that Luchessi had taken the specific factual allegations to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. Lucchesi than stated to Bernstein that following his presentation he was contacting Harry I. Moatz to begin investigation of the Federal crimes committed against the United States and would be working with Moatz on those crimes first, the others to follow. After Bernstein’s initial two conversations with Sconzo, Bernstein and I called Sconzo on the afternoon of April 18, to clarify certain issues of the April 16 discussion and the subsequent discussion between Bernstein and Sconzo on April 17[15].

Furthermore, Sconzo surprisingly recanted many of the statements he made to Bernstein one and two days earlier, including but not limited to:

1. While previously stating to Bernstein on April 17 that he [Sconzo] spoke with Lucchesi and during the April 18 call, with me present he would not admit that he spoke with Lucchesi directly; and

2. During the Bernstein calls, Sconzo stated that no case existed and that the Bureau Office had no records of the U.S. Attorney’s decision, further proffering that the case files included original evidentiary documents are missing; and

3. Reiterating that he could not find any evidence that the specific factual allegations of Bernstein and Iviewit were ever formulated into a specific case file; and

4. Stated that, in his discussion with Lucchesi, Lucchesi represented that he received a call from Harry I. Moatz, Director of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”) of the USPTO (“Moatz”) in diametric opposition to the representations of Lucchesi that he [Lucchesi] had called Moatz and that they were conducting a joint Bureau Office/OED investigation; and

5. When Bernstein asked Sconzo what rules and procedures the Bureau Office must follow, Sconzo rebuffed Bernstein stating that “[he] was not going to be interrogated,” or words to that effect; and

6. Stated that there was no documentation that evidenced the U.S. Attorney’s review or decision of the specific factual allegations of Bernstein and Iviewit, let alone specific documentation of the U.S. Attorney’s declining to prosecute the specific factual allegations; and

7. Stated that the U.S. Attorney decision is not normally conveyed to the Complainant but if it is, it is done orally, not in writing; and

8. Refused to restate that in the call of April 17, that he [Sconzo] was Supervisor and Senior Officer in charge of handling matters of the West Palm Beach Bureau Office, and factually “flip-flopped” on the April 18 call that he was Lucchesi’s supervisor or involved with this case at all and that his only involvement was the, in his view, inappropriate facsimile by Bernstein two days earlier; and

9. Stated that Bernstein had made threats to him, when Bernstein asked if he was referring to the statement that he would file with the FBI IA and DOJ OIG, he stated this was not threat, when pressed further by Bernstein what he meant as he was stunned by the accusation for fear he might get a bag over his head and a one way ticket to Guantanamo Bay aka Camp Gitmoschwitz for such unknown threat, Sconzo refused to reveal the content of the threat and soon thereafter hung up the phone mid conversation with us.

Furthermore, on April 18, 2007, Bernstein and I teleconferenced with John McVie (sp?) (“McVie”)[16], who described himself instead now as the head of the West Palm Beach Bureau Office in West Palm Beach, Fla., contradicting Sconzo’s former claim and who upon learning of our claims, both the specific factual allegations, but more importantly at this juncture, the contradictions of Sconzo and the representations or, perhaps, misrepresentations of Lucchesi, advised Bernstein and I to file a complaint with the Washington Internal Affairs office of the FBI.

Additionally, in this April 18 call with McVie, more doubt crossed the minds of Bernstein and myself when McVie went on to state that:

1. No case existed or was docketed pertaining to the specific factual allegations of Bernstein and Iviewit; and

2. That they had no documentation pertaining to the U.S. Attorney’s decision, if the claims were ever taken there at all; and

3. Stated case files and the original evidentiary documents are missing; and

4. Stated that when cases are refused by a U.S. Attorney, such documentation goes into a “zero file” that, in the case of the Bureau Office have not been updated since 1997 and to get such information could be a monumental task; and

5. Stated that there are no procedures the West Palm Beach Bureau Office follows in the disposition of cases and it at the discretion of the particular Special Agent charged with the matters of how cases and the files will be disposed of; and

6. That there were no rules or procedural law regulating the West Palm Beach Bureau Office; and

7. Stated that Lucchesi’s direct report supervisor[17] had “retired” and there was no replacement just a “blank desk;” and

8. Stated that it is uncommon for FBI to notice Complainants of the outcome of a case or the handling of the files, but that sometimes they do verbally; and

9. Stated that he [McVie] thought the specific factual allegations of Bernstein and Iviewit were civil matters, Bernstein recited him a multiplicity of Title 18 codes, much in the same way he did during the August 2004 meeting with Lucchesi and the other Special Agent brought in by Lucchesi to oversight the crimes committed by the law firms, and much in the same way as the Gaffney meeting of 2003 McVie agreed that many of these Title 18 violations that were cited, although not all listed in footnote 2 where under their jurisdiction to investigate and then immediately stated to again lodge a complaint with the FBI IA; and

10. Stated there was no formal procedure for document maintenance or file retention; and

11. Stated that The Honorable Glenn Fine, Inspector General at the Department of Justice had no oversight of the Bureau Office and it would be a waste of time to notify them and request oversight investigations; and

12. Stated that the House and Senate Judiciary Committee had no oversight of the West Palm Beach Bureau Office, but was only capable of making recommendations and thus was powerless over the actions of the FBI.

ACTION REQUESTED

Furthermore, as a result of the series of allegations enclosed, and although it is clear that the role of the Department of Justice is to prosecute allegations that have merit not to investigate allegations which it delegates to the Bureau Office and others, I find it reasonable that your Office: (i) shall find the requisite merit to initiate, and/or oversight investigations; (ii) shall pass these allegations to a staff attorney in the Office of the Inspector General; (iii) shall instruct said staff attorney to institute a formal investigation, including questioning, requests for records, and other information from all parties involved; (iv) shall refer said attorney’s findings back to you as the Inspector General of the Department of Justice; (v) shall present such findings for determinative review; (vi) shall witness a disposition that urges disciplinary action against the alleged offending Bureau Office and its Special Agents, jointly and severally; and finally (vi) shall demand a full affirmed conflict disclosure statement from each and every person who may become involved in the ongoing investigations and reviews of former investigations or any other aspect of these matters as illustrated in the attached conflict form at the beginning of this document. That we pray this office signs the first, as a sign of good faith in going forward and assuring public confidence that conflicts will cease to exist in these matters. The necessity of this statement of no conflict from every participant henceforth cannot be overstated as the case involves upwards of four thousand lawyers who have four thousand more friends in the world of politicks and law enforcement and thus getting rid of any potential for further conflict by extreme conflict screening, that if discovered by Johnny Q. Public a failure in justice free of conflict would cause a total loss of faith in our judicial and political processes.

CONCLUSION

Lastly, Iviewit often asks itself, among other things, “Why did the Hon. Jorge LaBarga of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, Florida deny Iviewit’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim for Damages (concerning the aforementioned allegations)” and “Why did The Florida Bar (‘TFB’) dismiss the complaint against Christopher C. Wheeler, Esq. (‘Wheeler’ and, a non-patent attorney, a main protagonist of the above referenced allegations) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida deny Iviewit’s Petition to begin the immediate investigation of the Wheeler complaint (when TFB admitted in writing that the answer to the Wheeler complaint was authored by an attorney in flagrant violation of his public office obligations)” and “Why did the First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee of New York stall Iviewit’s complaint against Rubenstein and Joao despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why, despite the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department’s order to begin the immediate investigation of Rubenstein and Joao, did the Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee of New York dismiss the Rubenstein and Joao complaints and stating that they were ‘not under the jurisdiction’ of the First Department Court” not even asking those ordered for investigation a single question in their defense and “Why did the Virginia Bar Association dismiss the Dick complaint despite overwhelming evidence that Dick had submitted fraudulent patent portfolio’s to the USPTO and the same document caused Moatz to institute investigation of Dick” and “Why did the Supreme Court of the United States decline to hear Iviewit’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the Florida Court’s decision and make it impossible for Iviewit to file complaints against members of the Florida Bar inapposite the Florida Constitution and again a violation of due process” and “why did John Doll, former Commissioner of Patents at the USPTO, fail to correct the inventors, and why has his successor, Jon W. Dudas, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, still yet fail to correct the inventors or continue the patent suspensions according to law on formal request and then refuse to take or return Iviewit’s call to address the petition directed by Moatz having Bernstein file charges of FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE in the falsifying of oaths of invention declarations by licensed members of the patent bar to the USPTO, more than three years ago, and cosigned by the Iviewit inventors and Crossbow Ventures, representing the SBA interest, as well” and why would patent office suspend some of the IP pending ongoing investigations and then suddenly cease communications with Iviewit and why would Lucchesi represent that he took his investigation to Moatz of OED to conduct jointly if that were not the case, and why would Lucchesi represent that he took his investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office when no evidentiary documentation exists to verify that fact, and why is there a question in our minds as to whether Lucchesi voluntarily “retired,” or was it more that he was terminated for pursuing the specific factual allegations of Bernstein and Iviewit, if he ever did pursue them at all as he represented, and why is there a question in our minds as to whether Lucchesi’s then direct report voluntarily “retired,” or was it more that he was terminated for allowing Luchessi to pursue the specific factual allegations of Bernstein and Iviewit, if Lucchesi ever did pursue them at all as he represented, and why would Sconzo find no evidentiary documentation pertaining to issues discussed by and between Lucchesi, Bernstein, and Iviewit since 2003, and why would McVie find no evidentiary documentation pertaining to issues discussed by and between Lucchesi, Bernstein, and Iviewit since 2003, and why would both Sconzo and McVie attempt to sway Bernstein’s efforts to complain of the actions of Lucchesi, Sconzo, McVie, and the Bureau Office, and why is there a correlation in our minds that if there are allegations of U.S. Attorney terminations for political reasons may there be Special Agents “retirements” for many of the same reasons, and why is it that we hear that the Iviewit matters are civil by everyone that we next find conflict with, when it is clear that Iviewit cannot prosecute for crimes committed against local, state and federal agencies of the United States and foreign nations, and why has not one investigator or court officer or lawyer upon written request signed an affirmed statement that they are not conflicted with these matters before undertaking the matters, which would bind them only slightly more to duty and Iviewit finds itself answering “[T]HAT IT IS ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE PATTERN OF FRAUDS, DECEITS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT RUN SO WIDE AND SO DEEP THAT IT TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF WHAT HAS BECOME TO BE KNOW AS FREE COMMERCE AND DEMOCRACY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND, IN THE FACT THAT IT PERTAINS TO INVENTORS RIGHTS, DUE PROCESS AND

CIVIL RIGHTS TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

Very truly yours,

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC./IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By:

P. Stephen Lamont

Former Chief Executive Officer (Acting)

By:

Eliot I. Bernstein

Founder and Inventor

e copy and/or cc:

Select Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee’s

Senator Dianne Feinstein

The Honorable Inspector General, Department of Justice, Glenn Fine

Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, United States Patent & Trademark Office, Harry I. Moatz

The Honorable Inspector General, Department of Commerce, Johnnie Frazier

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Jon W. Dudas

Select Iviewit Shareholders and other Debenture Holders both know and unknown

Exhibit 2 - List of Iviewit Companies

Iviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL

UVIEW.COM, INC. – DL

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. – DL

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. – DL

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. – FL

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. – DEL

Any other john doe iviewit company not known at this time

*Certain companies were opened without board or management knowledge to facilitate the herein described crimes

exhibit 3 - List of Crimes presented to the WFBI

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION VIOLATIONS

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 8

AMENDMENT V - fifth amendment - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. due process

AMENDMENT XIV - CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS

federal code

The Economic Espionage Act

ANTITRUST CIVIL PROCESS

THE SHERMAN ACT

the sherman act

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1965 RICO VENUE AND PROCESS

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1961 ("RICO")

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1962 (a) - RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (B) RICO

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 SEC 1962 (C) RICO

title 18 part i ch 19 sec 1962 (d) RICo

TITLE 18 PART I CH 96 Sec 1968 RICO CIVIL INVESTIGATIVE DEMAND

TITLE 18 PART I CH 19 CONSPIRACY Sec 371 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENSE OR TO DEFRAUD UNITED STATES

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING Sec 1951 - INTERFERENCE WITH COMMERCE BY THREATS OR VIOLENCE

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1952 Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1956 Laundering of monetary instruments

TITLE 18 PART I CH 95 RACKETEERING SEC 1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 103 SEC. 2112 - Personal property of United States

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 RELATING TO MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE Sec. 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. - Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 6 - Forfeiture of property in transit

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec 6a - Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 14 - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

TITLE 15 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 18 - Acquisition by one corporation of stock of another

TITLE 15 CH 1 Sec 19 Interlocking directorates and officers

TITLE 15 CH 1 Sec 26 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR PRIVATE PARTIES; EXCEPTION; COSTS

TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH I Sec 45 Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH I Sec 57b Civil actions for violations of rules and cease and desist orders respecting unfair or deceptive acts or practices

TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II SEC 62 - Export trade and antitrust legislation

TITLE 15 CH 2 SUBCH II SEC 64 - Unfair methods of competition in export trade

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 501 Infringement of copyright.

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 502 Remedies for infringement: Injunctions

TITLE 17 CH 5 SEC 503 Remedies for infringement: Impounding and disposition of infringing articles

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 504 Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 505 Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney's fees

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 506 Criminal offenses

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 507 Limitations on actions

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 508 Notification of filing and determination of actions

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 509 Seizure and forfeiture

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 510 REMEDIES FOR ALTERATION OF PROGRAMMING BY CABLE SYSTEMS

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 511 Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of copyright

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 512 Limitations on liability relating to material online

TITLE 17 CH 5 Sec 513 Determination of reasonable license fees for individual proprietors

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 Sec 1312 - Oaths and acknowledgments

TITLE 17 CH 13 Sec 1326 Penalty for false marking

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 13 Sec 1327 - Penalty for false Representation

TITLE 17 cH 13 Sec 1329 Relation to design patent law

TITLE 17 CH 13 Sec 1330 Common law and other rights unaffected

TITLE 35 PART I CH 2 Sec 25 Declaration in lieu of oath

TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 Sec 115 Oath of applicant

TITLE 35 PART II CH 11 Sec 116 Inventors

TITLE 35 PART III CH 261 Ownership; assignment

TITLE 35 PART IV PATENT COOPERATION TREATY CH 35 Sec 351

TITLE 35 PART IV CH 37 Sec 373 Improper applicant

SEC1.56 Duty to disclose information material to patentability

SEC 1.63 regarding Oaths and declarations

CONSOLIDATED PATENT RULES SEC 1.63

SEC 1.64 regarding person making false oaths and Declarations

SEC 1.71 regarding detailed description and specification of the invention.

SEC 1.137 for Revival of abandoned application, terminated reexamination proceeding, or lapsed patent

LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 1001

LAWS NOT IN TITLE 35, UNITED STATES CODE 18 U.S.C. 2071

Title 37 - Code of Federal Regulations Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights - MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE PATENT RULES Part 10 - PRACTICE BEFORE THE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE PART 10 - REPRESENTATION OF OTHERS BEFORE THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK

SEC10.18 Signature and certificate for correspondence filed in the Patent and Trademark Office

SEC 10.20 Canons and Disciplinary Rules

SEC 10.21 Canon 1

SEC 10.23 Misconduct

SEC 10.25 - 10.29 [Reserved] SEC 10.30 Canon 2

SEC 10.31 Communications concerning a practitioner's services

SEC 10.33 Direct contact with prospective clients

SEC 10.40 Withdrawal from employment

SEC 10.50 - 10.55 [Reserved] SEC 10.56 Canon 4

SEC 10.57 Preservation of confidences and secrets of a client

SEC 10.58 - 10.60 [Reserved] SEC 10.61 Canon 5

SEC 10.64 Avoiding acquisition of interest in litigation or proceeding before the Office

SEC 10.65 Limiting business relations with a client

SEC10.66 Refusing to accept or continue employment if the interests of another client may impair the independent professional judgment of the practitioner

SEC 10.68 Avoiding influence by others than the client

SEC 10.69 - 10.75 [Reserved] SEC 10.76 Canon 6

SEC 10.77 Failing to act competently

SEC 10.78 Limiting liability to client

SEC 10.79 - 10.82 [Reserved] SEC 10.83 Canon 7

SEC 10.84 Representing a client zealously

SEC 10.85 Representing a client within the bounds of the law

SEC 10.94 - 10.99 [Reserved] SEC 10.100 Canon 8

SEC 10.104 - 10.109 [Reserved] SEC 10.110 Canon 9

SEC 10.112 Preserving identity of funds and property of client

PATENT RULES PART 10 INDEX - PART 15

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1831 Economic espionage

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1832 Theft of trade secrets

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1834 Criminal forfeiture

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1835 ORDERS TO PRESERVE CONFIDENTIALITY

TITLE 18 PART I CH 90 Sec 1837 Applicability to conduct outside the United States

TITLE 15 CH 22 TRADEMARKS Sec 1116 Injunctive relief

TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1117 - Recovery for violation of rights

TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1120 CIVIL LIABILITY FOR FALSE OR FRAUDULENT REGISTRATION

TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1125 FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN

TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH III Sec 1126 False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden

TITLE 17 - COPYRIGHTS

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 BANKRUPTCY Sec. 152 CONCEALMENT OF ASSETS; FALSE OATHS AND CLAIMS; BRIBERY

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 Sec 156 - Knowing disregard of bankruptcy law or rule

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 Sec 157 - Bankruptcy fraud

TITLE 11 CHAPTER 1 Sec 110 - Penalty for persons who negligently or fraudulently prepare bankruptcy petitions

TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS Sec 1001

TITLE 18 PART I CH 47 Sec 1031 - Major fraud against the United States

TITLE 18 PART I CH 65 Sec 1361 - Government property or contracts

TITLE 18 PART I CH 103 Sec 2112 - Personal property of United States

TITLE 18 PART I CH 103 Sec 2114 - Mail, money, or other property of United States

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 STOLEN PROPERTY Sec 2311

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2314 - Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2315 - Sale or receipt of stolen goods, securities, moneys, or fraudulent State tax stamps

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2318 - Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit computer program documentation or packaging

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright

TITLE 18 PART I CH 113 Sec 2320 - Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1621 - Perjury generally

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1622

TITLE 18 PART I CH 79 Sec 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1341 - Frauds and swindles

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1342 Fictitious name or address

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1344 - Bank fraud

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1346 - Definition of ''scheme or artifice to defraud''

TITLE 18 PART I CH 63 Sec 1345 - Injunctions against fraud

TITLE 18 PART I CH 83 Sec 1701 - Obstruction of mails generally

TITLE 18 PART I CH 83 Sec 1702 - Obstruction of correspondence

TITLE 26 INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

TITLE 18 PART I CH 31 Sec 641 - Public money, property or records

Sec 654 - Officer or employee of United States converting property of another

TITLE 15 CH 22 SUBCH IV SUBCHAPTER IV - THE MADRID PROTOCOL

TITLE 18 PART I CH 73 Sec 1511 - Obstruction of State or local law enforcement

OTHER AUTHORITIES

FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND STATUE VIOLATIONS

SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT

SECTION 15 - ATTORNEYS; ADMISSION AND DISCIPLINE

SECTION 21 - ACCESS TO COURTS

SECTION 22 - TRIAL BY JURY

SECTION 24 - ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS AND MEETINGS

SECTION 8 - ETHICS IN GOVERNMENT

SECTION 9 - DUE PROCESS

TITLE V - JUDICIAL BRANCH - CHAPTER 38 - JUDGES; GENERAL PROVISIONS - DISQUALIFICATION WHEN JUDGE PARTY; EFFECT OF ATTEMPTED JUDICIAL ACTS SUGGESTION OF DISQUALIFICATION; GROUNDS; PROCEEDINGS ON SUGGESTION AND EFFECT DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE FOR PREJUDICE; APPLICATION; AFFIDAVITS; ETC.

TITLE XLIV - CIVIL RIGHTS Ch 760-765-760.01 the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992

760.51 Violation of constitutional rights, civil action by the Attorney General; civil penalty

Title XLV - TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.103 Prohibited activities. Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.104 Civil cause of action.

Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES 772.11 Civil remedy for theft or exploitation

Title XLV TORTS - Ch 772 CIVIL REMEDIES FOR CRIMINAL PRACTICES - 772.185 Attorney's fees taxed as costs

CH 895 - OFFENSES CONCERNING RACKETEERING AND ILLEGAL DEBTS 895.01 "Florida RICO (Racketeer influenced and Corrupt Organization) Act

895.03 Prohibited activities and defense

895.04 Criminal penalties and alternative fine

895.05 Civil remedies

895.06 Civil investigative subpoenas

895.07 RICO lien notice

895.08 Term of RICO lien notice

896.102 Currency more than $10,000 received in trade or business; report required; noncompliance penalties

896.103 Transaction which constitutes separate offense 896.104 Structuring transactions to evade reporting or registration requirements prohibited

PART III - CODE OF ETHICS FOR PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

112.313 Standards of conduct for public officers, employees of agencies, and local government attorneys. 112.320 Commission on Ethics; purpose

112.324 Procedures on complaints of violations; public records and meeting exemptions

112.3241 Judicial review

112.3173 Felonies involving breach of public trust and other specified offenses by public officers and employees; forfeiture of retirement benefits

112.52 Removal of a public official when a method is not otherwise provided

Title X PUBLIC OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, AND RECORDS Ch 112 PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES: GENERAL PROVISIONS sec 112.317 Penalties

CH 838 - BRIBERY; MISUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE sec 838.022 Official misconduct

CH 839 - OFFENSES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES sec 839.13 Falsifying records

839.26 Misuse of confidential information

Title XLVI Ch 777 PRINCIPAL; ACCESSORY; ATTEMPT; SOLICITATION; CONSPIRACY sec 777.011 Principal in first degree

Title XLVI Ch 777 sec 777.03 Accessory after the fact

Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT

Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 688.003 Injunctive relief

Title XXXIX COMMERCIAL RELATIONS Ch 688 UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT 688.004 Damages

FLORIDA TITLE XXXIII REGULATION OF TRADE, COMMERCE, INVESTMENTS, AND SOLICITATIONS

Ch 495 REGISTRATION OF TRADEMARKS AND SERVICE MARKS sec 495.121 Fraudulent registration

Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.131 Infringement

Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.141 Remedies

Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.151 Injury to business reputation; dilution

Title XXXIII Ch 495 sec 495.161 Common-law rights

559.791 False swearing on application; penalties

FLORIDA PROTECTION OF TRADE SECRETS

sec 812.081 Trade secrets; theft, embezzlement; unlawful Copying; definitions; penalty

sec 812.13 ROBBERY

sec 812.155 Hiring, leasing, or obtaining personal property or equipment with the intent to defraud; failing to return hired or leased personal property or equipment; rules of evidence

SEC CH 815 - COMPUTER-RELATED CRIMES

sec 815.01 "Florida Computer Crimes Act"

sec 815.04 Offenses against intellectual property; public records exemption

sec 815.045 Trade secret information

sec 815.06 Offenses against computer users

sec 831.03 Forging or counterfeiting private labels; possession of reproduction materials

sec 831.04 Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing

sec 831.05 Vending goods or services with counterfeit trademarks or service marks

FLORIDA - FORGERY

sec 831.01 Forgery

sec 831.02 Uttering forged instruments

sec 831.03 Forging or counterfeiting private labels; possession of reproduction materials

831.04 Penalty for changing or forging certain instruments of writing

831.05 Vending goods or services with counterfeit trademarks or service marks

sec 831.06 Fictitious signature of officer of corporation

FLORIDA CH 817 - FRAUDULENT PRACTICES - PART I - FALSE PRETENSES AND FRAUDS, GENERALLY

CHAPTER 817 - SEC 817.02 Obtaining property by false personation

817.025 Home or private business invasion by false personation; penalties

sec 817.03 Making false statement to obtain property or credit

sec 817.031 Making false statements; venue of prosecution.

sec 817.034 Florida Communications Fraud Act

sec 817.05 False statements to merchants as to financial condition

sec 817.06 Misleading advertisements prohibited; penalty

sec 817.061 Misleading solicitation of payments prohibited.

sec 817.12 Penalty for violation of s. 817.11

sec 817.15 Making false entries, etc., on books of corporation

sec 817.155 Matters within jurisdiction of Department of State; false, fictitious, or fraudulent acts, statements, and representations prohibited; penalty; statute of limitations

sec 817.19 Fraudulent issue of certificate of stock of corporation

sec 817.20 Issuing stock or obligation of corporation beyond authorized amount

sec 817.21 Books to be evidence in such cases

sec 817.234 False and fraudulent insurance claims

sec 817.562 Fraud involving a security interest

sec 817.566 Misrepresentation of association with, or academic standing at, post secondary educational institution

sec 817.567 Making false claims of academic degree or title

sec 837.02 Perjury in official proceedings

sec 837.021 Perjury by contradictory statements

sec 837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities

sec 837.06 False official statements

220.21 Returns and records; regulations

PART X TAX CRIMES 220.901 Willful and fraudulent acts

sec 220.905 Aiding and abetting

THEFT, ROBBERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION AND CONVERSION OF FUNDS

FLORIDA LAW SEC 812.081 TRADE SECRETS; THEFT, EMBEZZLEMENT; UNLAWFUL COPYING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTY

Title XXXVI BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS Ch 607 CORPORATIONS sec 607.0129 Penalty for signing false document

607.1402 Dissolution by board of directors and shareholders; dissolution by written consent of shareholders

sec 607.0129 Penalty for signing false document

sec 607.830 General standards for directors

sec 607.830 Director conflicts of interest

sec 607.0834 Liability for unlawful distributions

sec 607.0841 Duties of officers

sec 607.0901 Affiliated transactions

VIOLATIONS OF THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR

NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION and STATUES VIOALTIONS

New York State Consolidated Laws Penal ARTICLE 105 CONSPIRACY

New York State Consolidated Laws Penal ARTICLE 200 BRIBERY INVOLVING PUBLIC SERVANTS AND RELATED OFFENSES

S 200.03 Bribery in the second degree

S 200.04 Bribery in the first degree

S 200.05 Bribery; defense

S 200.10 Bribe receiving in the third degree

S 200.11 Bribe receiving in the second degree

S 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree

S 200.15 Bribe receiving; no defense

S 200.20 Rewarding official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree S 200.25 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the second degree

S 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree

S 200.30 Giving unlawful gratuities

S 200.35 Receiving unlawful gratuities

S 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office; definition of term

S 200.45 Bribe giving for public office

S 200.50 Bribe receiving for public office

ARTICLE 175 OFFENSES INVOLVING FALSE WRITTEN STATEMENTS

S 175.05 Falsifying business records in the second degree. S 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

S 175.15 Falsifying business records; defense

S 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree

S 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree S 175.30 Offering a false instrument for filing in the second degree

S 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree

NY Constitution ARTICLE XIII Public Officers

Public Officers - Public Officers ARTICLE 1

ARTICLE 2 Appointment and Qualification of Public Officers - ARTICLE 15 ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS

S 468-b. Clients` security fund of the state of New York

S 476-a. Action for unlawful practice of the law

S 476-b. Injunction to restrain defendant from unlawful practice of the law

S 476-c. Investigation by the attorney-general

S 487. Misconduct by attorneys

S 488. Buying demands on which to bring an action.

Public Officers Law SEC 73 Restrictions on the Activities Of Current and Former State Officers and Employees

Public Officers Law SEC 74 Code of Ethics

NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS TITLE X ORGANIZED CRIME CONTROL ACT ARTICLE

ENTERPRISE CORRUPTION

S 460.20 Enterprise corruption

S 460.25 Enterprise corruption; limitations

S 460.30 Enterprise corruption; forfeiture

S 460.40 Enterprise corruption; jurisdiction

S 460.50 Enterprise corruption; prosecution

S 460.60 Enterprise corruption; consent to prosecute

S 460.70 Provisional remedies

S 460.80 Court ordered disclosure

NEW YORK STATE CONSOLIDATED LAWS ARTICLE 210 - PERJURY AND RELATED OFFENSES

S 210.05 Perjury in the third degree

S 210.10 Perjury in the second degree

S 210.15 Perjury in the first degree

S 210.20 Perjury; pleading and proof where inconsistent statements involved

S 210.25 Perjury; defense

S 210.30 Perjury; no defense

S 210.35 Making an apparently sworn false statement in the second degree

S 210.40 Making an apparently sworn false statement in the first degree

S 210.45 Making a punishable false written statement

S 210.50 Perjury and related offenses; requirement of corroboration

DELAWARE STATE Constitution and STATUE CRIMES

DELAWARE SEC 521 CONSPIRACY

CH 5 SPECIFIC OFFENSES Subch I Inchoate Crimes SEC 521 Conspiracy SEC 531 Attempt to commit a crime

SEC 871 Falsifying business records; class A misdemeanor.

SEC 891 Defrauding secured creditors; class A misdemeanor

SEC 909 Securing execution of documents by deception

VIOLATIONS OF DELAWARE CORPORATE LAWS

SEC 102. Contents of certificate of incorporation �Amendment effective Aug. 1, 2004, included; see 74 Del. Laws, c. 32.

SEC 224. Form of records

SEC251. Merger or consolidation of domestic corporations and limited liability company

SEC253. Merger of parent corporation and subsidiary or subsidiaries

SEC 257 Merger or consolidation of domestic stock and nonstock corporations

SEC 372 Additional requirements in case of change of name, change of business purpose or merger or consolidation

INTERNATIONAL CRIMES

FRAUD UPON THE JAPANESE PATENT OFFICES (JPO)

VIOLATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT COOPERATION (PCT) TREATISE

ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE ACT

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 90 > SEC 1831 Economic espionage

exhibit 4 - Images of the car bombing that blew up four cars can be found on the Iviewit homepage at www.iviewit.tv

exhibit 5 - SHORT List of Accused

1. Proskauer Rose, LLP

Alan S. Jaffe - Chairman Of The Board - ("Jaffe"); Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); Robert Kafin - Managing Partner - ("Kafin"); Christopher C. Wheeler - ("Wheeler"); Steven C. Krane - ("Krane"); Stephen R. Kaye - ("S. Kaye"); Matthew Triggs - ("Triggs"); Christopher Pruzaski - ("Pruzaski"); Mara Lerner Robbins - ("Robbins"); Donald Thompson - ("Thompson"); Gayle Coleman; David George; George A. Pincus; Gregg Reed; Leon Gold - ("Gold"); Albert Gortz - ("Gortz"); Marcy Hahn-Saperstein; Kevin J. Healy - ("Healy"); Stuart Kapp; Ronald F. Storette; Chris Wolf; Jill Zammas; FULL LIST OF 601 liable Proskauer Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Proskauer partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Proskauer ROSE LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Proskauer related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Proskauer").

2. MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN, WOLF & SCHLISSEL, P.C.

Lewis Melzter - ("Meltzer"); Raymond Joao - ("Joao"); Frank Martinez - ("Martinez"); Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); FULL LIST OF 34 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MLGWS").

3. FOLEY & LARDNER

Michael Grebe (“Grebe”); Ralf Boer ("Boer"); William J. Dick - ("Dick"); Steven C. Becker - ("Becker"); Douglas Boehm - ("Boehm"); Barry Grossman - ("Grossman"); Jim Clark - ("Clark"); FULL LIST OF 1,042 FOLEY AND LARDNER liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Foley & Lardner partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Foley & Lardner; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Foley & Lardner related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Foley").

4. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP

Richard Schiffrin - ("Schiffrin"); Andrew Barroway - ("Barroway"); Krishna Narine - ("Narine"); FULL LIST OF 40 SCHIFFRIN AND BARROWAY, LLP liable Partners any other John Doe ("John Doe") Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("SB").

5. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP

Norman Zafman - ("Zafman"); Thomas Coester - ("Coester"); Farzad Ahmini - ("Ahmini"); George Hoover - ("Hoover"); FULL LIST OF 74 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") 5. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("BSTZ").

6. Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP

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

7. Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.

Alan M. Weisberg - ("Weisberg"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("CW").

8. YAMAKAWA INTERNATIONAL PATENT OFFICE

Masaki Yamakawa - ("Yamakawa"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Yamakawa International Patent Office partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Yamakawa International Patent Office; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Yamakawa International Patent Office related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Yamakawa").

9. GOLDSTEIN LEWIN & CO.

Donald J. Goldstein - ("Goldstein"); Gerald R. Lewin - ("Lewin"); Erika Lewin - ("E. Lewin"); Mark R. Gold; Paul Feuerberg; Salvatore Bochicchio; Marc H. List; David A. Katzman; Robert H. Garick; Robert C. Zeigen; Marc H. List; Lawrence A. Rosenblum; David A. Katzman; Brad N. Mciver; Robert Cini; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Goldstein & Lewin Co. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Goldstein & Lewin Co.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Goldstein & Lewin Co. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Goldstein").

10. INTEL, Real 3d, Inc. (SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN & INTEL) & RYJO

Gerald Stanley - ("Stanley"); Ryan Huisman - ("Huisman"); RYJO - ("RYJO"); Tim Connolly - ("Connolly"); Steve Cochran; David Bolton; Rosalie Bibona - ("Bibona"); Connie Martin; Richard Gentner; Steven A. Behrens; Matt Johannsen; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO; Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Intel/R3D").

11. Tiedemann Investment Group

Bruce T. Prolow ("Prolow"); Carl Tiedemann ("C. Tiedemann"); Andrew Philip Chesler; Craig L. Smith; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Tiedemann Investment Group partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Tiedemann Investment Group and any other Tiedemann Investment Group related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Tiedemann").

12. Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners (representing the largest iviewit shareholder interests via sbic loans, the federally backed small business administration

Stephen J. Warner - ("Warner"); Ren P. Eichenberger - ("Eichenberger"); H. Hickman Hank Powell - ("Powell"); Maurice Buchsbaum - ("Buchsbaum"); Eric Chen - ("Chen"); Avi Hersh; Matthew Shaw - ("Shaw"); Bruce W. Shewmaker - ("Shewmaker"); Ravi M. Ugale - ("Ugale"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Crossbow Ventures/Alpine Partners partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Crossbow Ventures/Alpine Partners and any other Crossbow Ventures/Alpine Partners related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Crossbow").

13. BROAD & CASSEL

James J. Wheeler - ("J. Wheeler"); Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Johnson"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Broad & Cassell partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Broad & Cassell and any other Broad & Cassell related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("BC").

14. FORMER IVIEWIT MANAGEMENT & BOARD

Brian G. Utley/Proskauer Referred Management - ("Utley"); Raymond Hersh - ("Hersh")/; Michael Reale - ("Reale")/Proskauer Referred Management; Rubenstein/Proskauer Rose - Advisory Board; Wheeler/Proskauer Rose - Advisory Board; Dick/Foley & Lardner - Advisory Board, Boehm/Foley & Lardner - Advisory Board; Becker/Foley & Lardner; Advisory Board; Joao/Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel - Advisory Board; Kane/Goldman Sachs - Board Director; Lewin/Goldstein Lewin - Board Director; Prolow/Tiedemann Prolow II - Board Director; Powell/Crossbow Ventures/Proskauer Referred Investor - Board Director; Buchsbaum - Board Director; Warner - Board Director; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Former Iviewit Management & Board partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Former Iviewit Management & Board and any other Former Iviewit Management & Board related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Board").

15. FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA

Judge Jorge LABARGA - ("Labarga"); Triggs; any other John Doe ("John Doe") FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("15C").

16. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
&
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

Thomas Cahill - ("Cahill"); Joseph Wigley - ("Wigley"); Krane, any other John Doe ("John Doe") THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("First Dept DDC").

17. THE FLORIDA BAR

Lorraine Christine Hoffman - ("Hoffman"); Eric Turner - ("Turner"); Kenneth Marvin - ("Marvin"); Anthony Boggs - ("Boggs"); Joy A. Bartmon - ("Bartmon"); Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Johnson"); Jerald Beer - ("Beer"); Triggs; Wheeler; any other John Doe ("John Doe") The Florida Bar staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("TFB")

18. MPEGLA, LLC

Columbia University; Fujitsu Limited; General Instrument Corp; Lucent Technologies Inc.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips); Scientific Atlanta, Inc.; Sony Corp. (Sony); EXTENDED LIST OF MPEGLA LICENSEES AND LICENSORS; any other John Doe MPEGLA, LLC. Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") MPEGLA, LLC partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to MPEGLA, LLC and any other MPEGLA, LLC related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MPEGLA").

19. DVD6C LICENSING GROUP

Toshiba Corporation; Hitachi, Ltd.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Time Warner Inc.; Victor Company Of Japan, Ltd.; EXTENDED DVD6C DEFENDANTS; any other John Doe DVD6C LICENSING GROUP Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") DVD6C LICENSING GROUP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to DVD6C LICENSING GROUP and any other DVD6C LICENSING GROUP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("DVD6C").

20. ANY OTHER Proskauer PATENT POOL WHEREBY LEGAL SERVICES HAVE BEEN RENDERED FOR POOL LICENSORS OR LICENSEES

21. ANY OTHER JOHN DOE CLASS I DEFENDANT THAT MAY BECOME KNOWN AT ANY OTHER TIME, AS INVESTIGATIONS REMAIN OPEN

22. Class Ii - Defendants

A. NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT VIOLATORS ("NDA") AND OTHER CONTRACT VIOLATORS

NOT ALL LISTED CLASS II DEFENDANTS MAY BE IN CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS RELATING TO THE NEXUS OF EVENTS AND THE COMPANY IS ASKING CEASE AND DESIST ACTIONS IN THESE MATTERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED HEREIN.

23. Class Iii Defendants

A. PATENT POOLS LICENSEES

NOT ALL LISTED CLASS III DEFENDANTS MAY BE IN CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS RELATING TO THE NEXUS OF EVENTS AND THE COMPANY IS ASKING CEASE AND DESIST ACTIONS IN THESE MATTERS, UNLESS OTHERWISE MENTIONED HEREIN

exhibit 6 - List of investigations and results

	*Department Filed With*	*Complaint*		*Filed With*		*Determination*		*NOTES*
#
1	House & Senate Judiciary Committee’s	John Dingell, House Energy & Commerce Committee forwards Iviewit former CEO, P. Stephen Lamont complaint to Nita Lowey to Judiciary Committee, Sam Garg			House Judiciary Committee by The Honorable John Dingell		Introduced January 2007	• P. Stephen Lamont, former Iviewit CEO, files complaint with Nita Lowey regarding his personal interests in the Iviewit companies and informs her of crimes against the United States Patent & Trademark Office, other United States agencies and international crimes against foreign nations. • Lowey passes the information to John Dingell, House Energy and Commerce Committee • Dingell forwards complaint to Sam Garg, House Judiciary Committee • Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein petitions Hon. Senator Dianne Feinstein of the Senate Judiciary Committee on behalf of inventor protections under Article 1, Sec. 8, Clause 8
2	The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein	Appeal for Congress to intervene on behalf of inventor Bernstein under (i) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 inventor protections (ii) Due Process & Procedure (iii) Civil Right to Life and (iv) notify Congress of crimes directly against the United States			The Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein	2006		• Feinstein office to contact various agencies to gather status of cases. • Waiting for response from office concerning the best places to take the complaint filed within Congress. • Petition to Feinstein asks for Government oversight as criminals have violated public offices of a multiplicity of government agencies in attempts to defraud inventors’ of inventions. • Call for government to be accountable for all investigations that have been found fraught with conflicts. • Call for Congress to enact legislation that suspends patents indefinitely while investigations are ongoing to protect patents from loss in opposite of the Constitution. • Call for Congress to enact protections for inventors and others lives, after car bombing. • Alert of potential Patentgate
3	Department of Justice – Office of Inspector General	Referred by FBI to investigate missing case files at the West Palm Beach Florida FBI offices	The Honorable Glenn Fine			2007		• In progress, waiting for FBI OPR to formally begin investigation.
4	Federal Bureau of Investigation – Office of Professional Responsibility	Directed to FBI OPR to investigate missing Iviewit case file from FBI & US Attorney Office Southern District Florida	H. Marshall Jarrett			2007		• 2007 FBI OPR refuses to allow Iviewit to talk to anyone in their offices, despite referral by the Department of Justice Inspector General and by referral from the FBI West Palm Beach, FL. Directing formal written complaint for immediate investigation of FBI West Palm Beach and US Attorney Offices
5	Federal Bureau of Investigation	Written Statement with evidence and witnesses. Personal interviews with Eliot I. Bernstein & P. Stephen Lamont	Special Agent ~ Stephen Luchessi - West Palm Beach by Iviewit Management and Shareholders			Formal Investigation - Ongoing Since 2000		• 2007 FBI states that Lucchesi has retired with the case file and no one has any information regarding Iviewit. • 2007 FBI directs Iviewit to the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility and the Department of Justice – Office of Inspector General to investigate possible corruption within the FBI • 2005 Luchessi confirms contact with Moatz to formally investigate federal crimes against the USPTO and Commerce Department. • 2005 Luchessi states he has taken complaints to US Attorney for Southern District of Florida for formal investigations. • 2000 FBI initially notified in the Long Beach, California offices, that death threats had been made against inventor Bernstein and that Harry Moatz of the patent office had been apprised of possible fraud against the USPTO. Formal complaints of the death threats was filed with the Rancho Palos Verdes local offices.
6	FBI/Boynton Beach Fire Dept & The Florida Fire Marshall	Car Bomb planted in inventor Eliot I. Bernstein's family mini-van	FBI, Special Agent ~ Stephen Luchessi & Boynton Beach Fire Investigator Rick Lee/The Florida Fire Marshall			Formal Investigation - Ongoing Since 2005 - Images @ www.iviewit.tv		• Status of investigation unknown after referring investigator to Lucchesi at FBI. • No protections instituted for inventor Bernstein or his family, despite the attempt and threats on their lives. • Bernstein's forced to flee again for their lives from Florida, the first time after Brian G. Utley threatened the life on inventor Bernstein in 2000 if he exposed the crimes initially exposed by Arthur Andersen and others
7	U.S. Attorney, Southern District Florida	Case brought by FBI, Special Agent, Luchessi				Formal Investigation - Ongoing since 2004		• 2007 – US Attorney Office has no records of the Iviewit case or any determinations that may have been made. The missing case from the FBI, along with the missing case at the US Attorney leads to FBI OPR and DOJ OIG investigations of possible internal corruption • 2004-2007 Unknown status of investigation
8	United States Patent & Trademark Office	Petition for Change of Inventors based on charges of fraud on the United States	Commissioner of Patents on advisement of Harry I. Moatz by Inventors & Investor Crossbow Ventures / Small Business Administration			Formal Investigation - Ongoing Since 1999		• Investigation has led to suspensions of patent applications by the Commissioner pending investigation outcome • Petition for continued suspension by inventors is granted by the Commissioners’ office pending investigation into the alleged patent crimes • Investigation may cause loss of inventor rights as current law is not in place for issues where patent bar members have committed fraud against states and investigations take longer than current suspension laws allow for; Congress is petitioned via Dianne Feinstein, by inventor Eliot I. Bernstein for changes to legislation to protect inventor rights. • Moatz advises inventors to call upon Congress to intercede where inventors, owners and assignees on intellectual properties have been falsified, to pursue having the intellectual properties corrected and returned to the true and proper inventors • The inventors are unable to make changes or gain information where they are not listed on the patents under current law • Commissioner of Patents apprised of OED
9	United States Patent & Trademark Office ~ Office of Enrollment & Discipline	Formal complaints filed with evidence and witnesses provided. Formal investigation of allegations of fraud on the USPTO by registered members of the federal Patent Bar	Director, Harry I. Moatz by Eliot I. Bernstein & P. Stephen Lamont			Formal Investigation - Ongoing Since 1999		• Formal investigation of law firms and patent attorneys o Proskauer Rose (Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao, others) o Foley & Lardner (William J. Dick, Steven Becker & Douglas Bohem o Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman (Norman Zafman, Thomas Coester, others) o Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel (Raymond Joao, others) o Schiffrin & Barroway (Andrew Barroway, Krishna Narine, others) • Per Moatz, he has begun formal investigation with Special Agent Stephen Luchessi of the FBI concerning the federal crimes committed against the USPTO and United States by the aforementioned law firms and lawyers • Moatz designs patent office team to get inventions suspended at USPTO and directs inventors to file fraud upon the USPTO • Moatz advises inventors to seek congressional intervention regarding a variety of patent issues • Patents are found in former management Brian Utley’s name, the patents ending up in fraudulent companies • Patents, 90 patents, are found in former patent counsel Raymond Joao’s name, m
10	United States Supreme Court	Case No. 05-6611 Eliot I. Bernstein v. The Florida Bar - Certiorari of Florida Supreme Court Case SC-1078	• Justices o ? o ? o ? o ? o ? o ?			Denied. Although United States Solicitor General was invited to undertake the crimes alleged against the United States, no response to court or Bernstein was ever tendered in response prior to the Supreme Court denying hearing the case.		• Court denied hearing of case, precluding Iviewit shareholders from advancing claims against attorney's caught violating Supreme Court of Florida public offices. • Denying the case set a "Catch 22" whereby citizens were precluded rights to have formal docketing of complaints against public officials and with no state or federal forum to file.
11	United States Bankrupty Court Southern District of Florida	Case No. 01-33407-BKC-SHF- Intel (RYJO), Brian Utley, Raymond Hersh and Michael Reale file involuntary bankruptcy against Iviewit.com LLC				Case dropped upon Iviewit retaining counsel to replace counsel that was prior unknown, acting on the companies behalf. Case will be appealed based upon startling new evidence, once due process can be assured in a conflict free forum.		• Iviewit was notified by investors in 2001 while doing a Private Placement with Wachovia that they were in a law suit with Proskauer Rose and an involuntary bankruptcy with Intel and former management. • Iviewit retained legal counsel to investigate how these legal actions could be instigated without shareholder or management consent. It was later learned that stolen intellectual properties were being funneled into companies set up by former counsel whereby they were the shareholders of the similar and identically named companies to the Iviewit companies. A sophisticated shell game of corporations and intellectual properties in attempt to defraud the United States, the inventors and shareholders. In so designing this artifice to defraud, applications in false inventors names for the Iviewit inventions was then filed fraudulently in violation of federal code and finally further prosecuted in over thirty countries in violation of international treatises.
12	AICPA	Case No. TNS 2004-038 - Written Statement with evidence and witnesses that Gerald Lewin had violated ethical codes of conduct	Elizabeth Boltz, CPA originally started investigation. New investigator replaced her and dismissed the case due to too busy?			Deferred to Florida Department of Professional Regulation after two years whereby investigation was underway and then new investigator stated the department did not have the resources to investigate further.		• The AICPA was apprised that crimes had been committed against the federal Small Business Administration and other United States departments and started an investigation. • A new investigator took over the case and stated the AICPA was to busy to further investigate and to contact Florida State authorities? • Despite overwhelming evidence that the accountant, Gerald Lewin and his daughter Erika were part of misleading Arthur Andersen auditors and were involved in crimes against the United States and were under investigation, the claim was that they had no resources to investigate
13	Boca Raton, Florida Police Complaint 1	Case No. 2001-054580 Embezzlement/Theft of Proprietary Equipment	J. Ulloa by William Kasser			6/20/2001Brian G. Utley & Michael Reale found in possession of stolen proprietary equipment and forced to return stolen property by Boca PD.		Upon requests to re-open the case due to further evidence submissions entailing more criminal activities, including fraud on the United States, Detective Robert Flechaus stated he began new investigations with the SEC. The SEC denied ever being involved, information forwarded to FBI.
14	Boca Raton, Florida Police Complaint 1	Case # Stolen SBA and Corporate Funds over $1,000,000 including SBA funds	Detective Robert Flechaus - Removed from case for internal affairs review			Ongoing		Case is under investigation and internal review by Chief Andrew Scott of the Boca Raton PD
15	Boca Raton, Florida Police Complaint 2	Case # - Stolen Patents and Crimes Against the USPTO & SBA	Detective Robert Flechaus - Removed from case for internal affairs review.			Ongoing		Case is under investigation and internal review by Chief Andrew Scott of the Boca Raton PD
16	Boca Raton Police Internal Affairs Investigation	Case #Unknown	Chief Andrew Scott			Ongoing		Case is under investigation and internal review by Chief Andrew Scott of the Boca Raton PD
17	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Petition for Investigation of Steven Krane, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao for conflict of interest, appearance of impropriety and crimes against the United States	First Dept Justices: Angela M. Mazzarelli, Richard T. Andrias, David B. Saxe, David Friedman & Lewis A. Gonzalez			Order for Formal Investigation & Disposition of Conflicts and Appearance of Impropriety - Unpublished Orders M3198 - Krane / M2820 Rubenstein and M3212		Court order for investigation never completed. Waiting for new forum that is conflict free to file for enforcement of court order.
18	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Complaint No. 2004.1883 Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskauer Rose LLP Intellectual Property Partner - Former President NYSBA & Member First Dept	Thomas Cahill, removed from case for conflict & appearance of impropriety, under special inquiry investigation			Supreme Court of New York - Appellate Division First Department - Justices Order Investigation for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety. Unanimous Vote		• Cases transferred for formal investigation, after review and deliberation of conflicts and appearance of impropriety by five justices of the New York First Department • Case originally dismissed upon review without investigation due to conflicts found in Steven Krane handling of complaints in violation of public office almost two years after it had begun. • Thomas Cahill, Chief Counsel, First Department now under special inquiry investigation for his part in aiding and abetting Krane, Rubenstein & Joao • Cahill upon request of Moatz of the USPTO-OED to contact him would not contact Moatz to enjoin investigations and prior to the federal OED investigation being completed tried to dismiss the cases without any formal investigation. At that time it was unknown that Krane was a leading disciplinary committee member with multiple roles at the First Dept. while handling complaints against his partners and then himself • Krane writes letter response to his complaint denying roles at the First Dept. Iviewit then c
19	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Case No. T-1689-04 Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskauer Rose LLP Intellectual Property Partner - Former President NYSBA & Member First Dept	Dianne Kearse, Chief Counsel - CONFLICTS ADMITTED WITH ACCUSED STEVEN KRANE			Failed to complete First Dept. court ordered investigation. Waiting for conflict free forum to press for full investigation as ordered.		• Further conflicts and violations of public offices were found and the Court Ordered Investigations by the First Department were never formally completed • Chief Counsel, Dianne Kearse, Second Dept DDC, writes Iviewit that cases were dismissed without investigation. No witnesses provided were called, no evidence tested and she claims she is not under the jurisdiction of the First Dept and therefore does not have to investigate under the court order • Kearse fails to respond to the First Dept with her decisions and instead attempts to dismiss the case through contacting Iviewit who did not order the investigation • Kearse admits conflicts with both Krane and Chief Judge of New York, Judith Kaye. • Kearse fails to disclose conflicts prior to handling the complaints • Kearse refuses to docket formally complaints against herself and Lawrence DiGiovanni, Chairman of the Second Dept DDC • Clerk of the Court, Pelzer (with no authority under the Disciplinary Dept., attempts to write letter stating that Kearse was
20	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary. Thomas Cahill, removed from case for conflict & appearance of impropriety, under special inquiry investigation	Case No. 2003.0531Kenneth Rubenstein & Proskauer Rose LLP	Supreme Court of New York - Appellate Division First Department - Justices Order Investigation for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety. Unanimous Vote					See Notes for Krane First Dept investigation
21	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Case No. T-1688-04 - Kenneth Rubenstein & Proskauer Rose LLP	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary.			Failed to complete First Dept. court ordered investigation. Waiting for conflict free forum to press for full investigation as ordered.		See Notes for Krane Second Dept investigation
21	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Case No. Unknown Number - Raymond Joao, Proskauer & MLGWS	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary.					Initially filed with Second Dept but case mysteriously transfers to First Dept with Rubenstein. Then the case is retransferred again to Second Dept with Rubenstein and Krane after discovery of conflicts and violations of New York Supreme Court - First Dept. - Disciplinary Dept.
22	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary. Thomas Cahill, removed from case for conflict & appearance of impropriety, under special inquiry investigation	Case No. 2003-0352 - Raymond Joao, Proskauer & MLGWS	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary. Thomas Cahill, removed from case for conflict & appearance of impropriety, under special inquiry investigation			Supreme Court of New York - Appellate Division First Department - Justices Order Investigation for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety. Unanimous Vote		*Transferred back to Second Department for conflict and appearance of impropriety. See Krane First Dept notes
23	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Case No. T-1690-04 - Raymond Joao, Proskauer & MLGWS	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary.			Failed to complete First Dept. court ordered investigation. Waiting for conflict free forum to press for full investigation as ordered.		See Notes for Krane Second Dept investigation
24	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary. Thomas Cahill, removed from case for conflict & appearance of impropriety, under special inquiry investigation	Case No. 2004.1122 - Thomas Cahill, Chief Counsel First Dept.	Ongoing - Transferred to special investigator Martin Gold from First Dept. for conflict			Ongoing Formal Investigation		Ongoing. Cahill charged with aiding and abetting Krane, Rubenstein & Joao and attempting to cover up conflicts and violations of public office with Krane.
25	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Complaint Refused Docketing - D. Kearse, Chief Counsel	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary.			Waiting to have complaint filed and docketed according to law in a non-conflicted third party venue		*Kearse refused docketing a formal written complaint against herself filed with her at her request for failure to follow a court order and conflicts - Kearse handled this herself and with such complaint filed, continued to act without disclosure despite admitted conflicts and a complaint filed against her
26	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary	Complaint Refused Docketing - Chairman, Lawrence DiGiovanna	New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary.			Waiting to have complaint filed and docketed according to law in a non-conflicted third party venue		*Kearse refused docketing a formal written complaint against DiGiovanna sent to her at her request for failure to obey a court order
27	Florida Supreme Court	Case No. SC04-1078 Eliot Bernstein v. The Florida Bar - Petition to investigate Florida Bar complaints due to conflicts of interest and public office violations of Supreme Court Florida Bar Officers	• Justices o Wells o Anstead o Lewis o Quince o Bell o JJ			Denied		• Conflict may be found in this case after reviewing that the Solicitor General of the Florida Supreme Court during the time of the Iviewit complaint was suddenly a Foley and Lardner partner, Christopher Kise. Kise recently was promoted to a specially created public office position in the Governor of Florida’s office. Foley and Lardner also represented the Governor of Florida. Foley opens offices in Florida after learning of pending complaints in that state against Proksauer and Foley partners. • Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court refuse formal and procedural docketing of complaints against officers with affirmed violations of public office, inapposite of the Florida and United States constitutions • Despite public office violations confirmed by The Florida Bar against officers, Florida Supreme Court refuses to prosecute and moves to destroy records opposite Florida record retention laws, attempts to destroy evidence of the conflicts and public office violations • Conflicts discovered elevate to Florida Bar President, Kelly Overstreet Johnson, found handling complaints against Christopher C. Wheeler (convicted of a Felony DUI with injury) while working as a lawyer under James Wheeler at a Florida law firm, without prior disclosure. • Florida Bar Counsel, John Anthony Boggs, attempts to dismiss attorney conflicts and violation of public offices by citing legislation he was proposing, instead of the law.
28	Florida Supreme Court - The Florida Bar	Case No. 2003-51 109 15© - Christopher C. Wheeler	Florida Supreme Court - The Florida Bar			Conflicts and Appearance of Impropriety Discovered. Case elevated to the Florida Supreme Court and then the United States Supreme Court - Wheeler gets arrested for felony DUI w/ Injury		Dismissed upon review without investigation and then re-opened and moved to the Florida Supreme Court upon discovery of conflicts of interest and appearance of impropriey in Matthew Triggs violation of public office in handling Wheeler complaint while in a blackout period precluding handling any matters for the Florida Bar. Without disclosure Triggs handled compaints for Proskauer partner Wheeler while in such blackout period.
29	Florida Supreme Court - The Florida Bar	Christopher C. Wheeler #2 - Complaint Refused Formal Docketing and Disposition, after conflicts and public office violations were discovered in Wheeler #1?	Florida Supreme Court - The Florida Bar					*Flabar and FSC refuse docket this formal written complaint where the charges were separate from Wheeler’s first complaint and for additional conflicts, conflicts again confirmed by Flabar in writing
30	Florida Supreme Court - The Florida Bar	Complaint Refused Docketing by Bar despite confirmed conflicts - Matthew Triggs	Florida Supreme Court - The Florida Bar					*Flabar and FSC refuse docketing formal written complaints even though they confirm conflicts and violations of public office positions with Flabar. Elevated to the Florida Supreme Court which denied hearing the case. That decision elevated to United States Supreme Court which also denied hearing the case, leaving the Iviewit shareholders with no Court to hear complaints against public officers violating their public offices. No ability to file complaints against public officers who were found violating public offices!!!
31	Fifteenth Judical District, Florida - Judge Jorge Labarga	Proskauer v. Iviewit Civil Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (At time of Iviewit discovering this law suit that management and shareholders were unaware of, it was not known that these were fraudulent companies set up by Proskauer to steal intellectual property.	Default Judgment against Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel					• Labarga refuses to allow a counter complaint filed by competent counsel for Iviewit showing that attorneys in the billing case have committed crimes against the United States Patent & Trademark Office • Labarga dismisses Iviewit law firms after cancelling a trial date with no notice to Iviewit or either of two law firms handling the case for Iviewit. • Labarga Immediately rules against Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel, after dismissing two law firms only days before. • Proskauer v. Iviewit will be appealed when due process and procedure can be insured based on new evidence. o It was unknown at the initial lawsuit, that the companies involved in the lawsuit, although similarly named to Iviewit, were set up fraudulently by former counsel to harbor stolen intellectual properties that were almost identical to the Iviewit intellectual properties o It appears the combination of the bogus involuntary bankruptcy and the bogus lawsuit, were
32	Judicial Qualifications Commission	Case Docket No. 03352						Judicial Qualifications Commission and where the entire case will be appealed upon assurance of due process in a venue conflict free. Astonishing new evidence shows the original Proskauer instigated law suit and bankruptcy were filed in fraud by Proskauer
33	Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation	Case Nos. 2004-053428 & 2004-053434 & 2004-053999	Angella Potter					Under review by Inspector General Office of the DBPR
34	Inspector General - Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation		Inspector General - Carl Cook & Ron Russo			Dismissed		Elevated to the Florida Chief Inspector General. Conflicts were then discovered at the highest level of the Florida Governors office with Foley and Lardner partners running that office. See complaint for the IG of Florida.
35	Pennsylvania Bar	No docket # - Krishna Narine	Pennsylvania Bar					Dismissed without investigation
36	Pennsylvania Bar	No docket # Andrew Barroway	Pennsylvania Bar					Dismissed without investigation
37	Virginia State Bar	Case Docket No. 04-888-1004 - William J. Dick & the law firm Foley & Lardenr	Virginia Bar					Dismissed without investigation *Where Virginia Bar refuses to advance the complaints in accordance with well established rules or return phone calls regarding this matter. Even after being notified of the conflicts in Florida and New York and perjured statement made Dick to that tribunal and the United States Patent Office in his response. In the Iviewit rebuttal to the response, evidence of the perjuries were presented. Also based on an intellectual property docket submitted by Dick on behalf of Foley & Lardner to that tribunal, upon review of the IP docket, Moatz of the USPTO-OED noted that certain information regarding the owners of those patents was false. This led to suspension of certain of the iviewit intellectual properties at the USPTO.
37	Institute of Professional Representatives Before the European Patent Office					Ongoing Formal Investigation		2007 – EPI sent documents sent from EPO that had clear evidence of fraud and requested that we contact FBI to contact Interpol to begin investigation on multiple continents. Complaints on file with the Institute of Professional Representatives Before the European Patent Office. Requests for investigation of Chris Mercer - President although investigation has been formally begun by that office
38	European Patent Office	Martyn Molyneaux				Ongoing		2007- In responding to EPI document request EPO sent over documents that were clearly frauds and had been changed on Office Actions Iviewit had submitted. This led to a second request to have FBI contact Interpol to co-investigate. Complaints on file with the European Patent Office & Against Patent Attorney's Licensed with that Institution, Martyn Molyneaux and his firms being the main accused. Complaints on file against Molyneaux and all culpable law firms involved in filing the fraudulent applications in Europe. Requests for oversight at EPO. EPO and EPI have recommended contacting the FBI to contact Interpol to investigate.
39	Japanese Patent Office					Ongoing		Complaints on file against accused.
40	Inspector General State of Florida	Melinda Miguel ~ Chief Inspector General				Dismissed Conflicts found with Foley and Lardner and Governor of Florida Offices that may act to preclude Florida investigatory actions on multiple grounds		2007 ~ The Inspector General of Florida was sent the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation dismissed case for review. Upon receipt of dismissal on review, conflicts were discovered with Foley and Lardner and the control over the Governor’s office of Florida. Specifically, Foley and Lardner, once chaired by Michael Grebe, is found to have made partner, Christopher Kise, former Solicitor General of Florida Supreme Court. Kise was made a special post in the Governor’s office as Senior Counsel to Governor. Foley has represented the Governor via Kise in the Florida School Voucher case. 2007 – Upon discovery of conflicts, IG refers us to Judiciary Committee and others to investigate but fails to take actions to instigate investigations of corruption in the highest offices of the State??? Complaints will shortly be filed in all recommended venues.

exhibit 7 - List of Iviewit Shareholders

H. Wayne Huizenga Jr./Investech Holdings LLC - ("Investech"); Crossbow Ventures/Alpine Venture Capital Partners LP - ("Crossbow"); Atlas Entertainment/Tidal 4/Robert Shapiro; Alanis Morissette; Happy Feet Living Trust - Ellen DeGeneres; Heche Trust - Anne Heche; Lauren Lloyd Living Trust; Scott Welch; New Media Holdings, Inc. - ("New Media"); Kenneth Anderson - ("Anderson"); James Osterling - ("Osterling"); James F. Armstrong - ("Armstrong"); Guy Iantoni ("G. Iantoni"); Jill M. Iantoni ("J. Iantoni"); Andrew R. Dietz ("A. Dietz"); Donna B. Dietz ("D. Dietz"); Patricia Daniels ("Daniels"); Bettie Stanger ("B. Stanger"); Lisa Friedstein ("L. Friedstein"); Mitchell Welsch ("M. Welsch"); Joan Stark ("J. Stark"); Anthony Frenden ("Frenden"); Anthony Giordano ("Giordano"); Jack Scanlan ("Scanlan"); Misty Morgan ("Morgan"); Maurice Buchsbaum ("Buchsbaum"); Emerald Capital Partners, Inc. ("Emerald"); Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer, P.C. ("AHJTW"); David Colter ("Colter"); Kevin Lockwood ("Lockwood"); Alan Young; Ed Butler; Joe Ryan; David Bernstein ("D. Bernstein"); Kevin Roach; Barry Becker ("Becker"); Tony Chirino ("Chirino"); Gregory B. Thagard ("Thagard"); George DiBedart; Stephen Verona; Charles Brunelas (“Brunelas"); Courtney Jurcak ("Jurcak"); Tammy Raymond ("Raymond"); Matthew Mink ("Mink"); Misty Marie Morgan ("Morgan"); Jennifer Kluge ("Kluge"); Jude Rosario ("Rosario"); Zakirul Shirajee ("Shirajee"); Donald G. Kane, II ("Kane"); Simon L. Bernstein ("S. Bernstein"); Geoffrey And Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. And Children ("Rogers"); P. Stephen Lamont ("Lamont"); P. Stephen Lamont II; The Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein 1999 Trust; The Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein 1999 Trust; Daniel Elijsha Abe Ottomo Bernstein; Eliot Ivan Bernstein ("Bernstein"); and Candice Michelle Bernstein ("C. Bernstein")

OTHER DEBENTURE OWNERS

Richard R. Rosman; Anthony Lewinter; Mollie Dekold ("Dekold"); Joseph Allen Fischman; Theodore Stuart Bernstein And Children; David And Pamela Simon And Children; Ginger Stanger ("Ginger"); Amanda Stanger; Crystal Stanger; Brett And Uli Howard ("Howard"); Mitchell Zamarin; Lorna And Christopher Grote; Joel & Robin Gonsalves And Children (Amber Tuomi, Holly Tuomi, Tyler Tuomi, Brooke Gonsalves, Ashley Gonsalves, Krystal Gonsalves & Jeanette Gonsalves); Gregory And Wendy Gonsalves And Children; Thaddeus And Judy Gonsalves And Children; Sherri Frazier And Children; Dorothy Winters; William And Michelle Slaby ("Slaby"); Michael And Nikki Stomp ("Stomp"); Karen And Kevin Kiley ("Kiley"); Jane Valence; Marc Garber, Esq.; Robert Feigenbaum; Beth And Frederick Klein; Partial List of Shareholders (Iviewit does not attest to these figures or names) and other known silent owners ("Johnny Q. Shareholders").

Hereinafter, collectively referred to as, ("Shareholders").

Exhibit 8 - Patent Suspension Request and Reply

See attached pdf document or supplemental attachment

exhibit 9 - Letter to USAF

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

P. Stephen Lamont

Former Chief Executive Officer (Acting)

and

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder and Inventor

By Facsimile

May 30, 2007

Jeffrey H. Sloman

First Assistant

United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of Florida

Re: Our May 30, 2007 call relating to the United States Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Florida’s case status for the Iviewit matters.

Dear Mr. Sloman,

We appreciate your tendering our call to R. Alexander Acosta whom we were referred to by the Deputy Attorney General’s office. Per our call, you asked for a few items before you could determine who, if anyone, at the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida had handled the Iviewit matters. In response to your questions to aid you in finding our case, we have provided most of the main suspects you requested in the matters and those whom the FBI were aware of, in the Conflict of Interest Disclosure attached to this communiqué. This should give you a global list of those involved in various aspects of the crimes alleged as suspects.

Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi of West Palm Beach was the officer investigating the matters and who claimed after several meetings that the crimes alleged to the FBI had been turned over to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Lucchesi stated he was also working together with the United States Patent & Trademark Office ~ Office of Enrollment & Discipline, Director, Harry I. Moatz, on the crimes against the United States that occurred in the fraudulent signatures of oath contained on the patent applications and other federal crimes against the United States and foreign nations[18].

Another avenue to follow up on in your endeavor to find information on the case could be the companies that were victims to the crimes, including but not limited to all of the following;

* Note that certain companies were opened fraudulently without Board approval or knowledge and may not be owned by the Iviewit Shareholders.

Uview.com, Inc. - DL; Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL; Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL; Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL; Iviewit Technologies, 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; any other John Doe Companies (John Doe”) not known at this time, as investigations remain ongoing. Hereinafter iviewit companies collectively referred to as ("Iviewit").

As mentioned, we have been advised to contact the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility by the Inspector General of the Department of Justice’s office and we would like to include your findings as soon as possible. As was also mentioned, we were under the impression that the FBI and US Attorney were also investigating the terrorist

like bombing of the main inventor Eliot I. Bernstein’s family minivan and thus these matters are of an urgent nature. Images of the car bombing and hosts of other information can be found at www.iviewit.tv .

Very truly yours,

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By:

Eliot I. Bernstein

Founder and Inventor

e copy and/or cc:

Select Members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committee’s

Senator Dianne Feinstein

The Honorable Inspector General, Department of Justice, Glenn Fine

Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, United States Patent & Trademark Office, Harry I. Moatz

The Honorable Inspector General, Department of Commerce, Johnnie Frazier

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Jon W. Dudas

Select Iviewit Shareholders and other Debenture Holders both know and unknown

[4] Images of the car bombing, which blew up four cars can be found on the Iviewit homepage at www.iviewit.tv

[7] (REAL 3D, Inc. composed at the time of 70% Lockheed, 20% Silicon Graphics Inc. and 10% Intel. Later 100% acquired by Intel. Intel now acts as one of the largest Non Disclosure Agreement and Strategic Alliance Agreement Partners infringers of the Iviewit technologies through a pattern of fraud.

[9] Patent Suspension Request and Reply – Complaint signed by Stephen J. Warner, former Chairman of Crossbow Ventures, on behalf additionally of monies from the Small Business Administration from SBIC loans in conjunction with Iviewit inventors. SBA is the largest holder of stock, the largest investor and largest benefactor of the technologies.

[10] Letter to USAF ~ Iviewit has contacted USAF Attorney General, R. Alexander Acosta’s office, who to date has no case number for the case the WFBI supposedly had taken the matters too.

[11] Christopher Clarke Wheeler recently convicted of a Felony Driving Under the Influence with Injury charge in Florida.

[13] See Source Document, Federal Bureau of Investigations OPR Exhibit ~ List of Crimes

[14] Exhibit 2 – See Source Document Exhibit ~ Ongoing Investigations

[15] Exhibit 1 – Letter to DOJ OIG Glenn Fine

[16] McVie was called on April 19, 2006 to clarify his name, the name of Lucchesi’s former supervisor, the name of legal counsel and the assistant US attorney he counseled with regarding the matters but has failed thus far to return the call.

[17] McVie did offer a name for Lucchesi’s supervisor prior to retiring, whom also had retired but we did not get a chance to get the name for formal inclusion herein. McVie who was called on April 19, 2007 had not returned a call to again reveal the oversight’s name in time for inclusion.

Assuming you are able to proceed with the matters with an affirmed statement that you have no conflict with the matters or those involved with the matters, following is a letter requesting action in the Iviewit matters:

By Facsimile & Email

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By Facsimile and Electronic Mail

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By Facsimile

[7] (REAL 3D, Inc. composed at the time of 70% Lockheed, 20% Silicon Graphics Inc. and 10% Intel. Later 100% acquired by Intel. Intel now acts as one of the largest Non Disclosure Agreement and Strategic Alliance Agreement Partners infringers of the Iviewit technologies through a pattern of fraud.

Assuming you are able to proceed with the matters with an affirmed statement that you have no conflict with the matters or those involved with the matters, following is a letter requesting action in the Iviewit matters:

By Facsimile & Email

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By Facsimile and Electronic Mail

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

By Facsimile

[7] (REAL 3D, Inc. composed at the time of 70% Lockheed, 20% Silicon Graphics Inc. and 10% Intel. Later 100% acquired by Intel. Intel now acts as one of the largest Non Disclosure Agreement and Strategic Alliance Agreement Partners infringers of the Iviewit technologies through a pattern of fraud.

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.