Rubenstein was out of control, denying wholly knowing of Iviewit or Eliot. We were in a billing lawsuit that we instigated against our fraudulent companies set up to steal the patent. Rubenstein’s name was all over the bills for meetings with Iviewit investors, investors like Huizenga and Warner Bros. but he paid no heed, he knew the Labarga was our whore and he felt confident he could just lie his way through this and that by the time shit began to fly, the inventors would be dead in his plan. A few billing entries, which completely annihilated his statements and set Rubenstein up for perjury charges, again he was so emboldened in delusions of grandeur, he now relied on our ability to break any law.

You must understand, it was torture, it was not natural, and it was like when I saw Eliot the voice in my head grew stronger, as if it were calling to me to follow, to some hidden dark recess in my mind, a place I did not know. We were all beginning to wonder if was Eliot somehow putting this in our heads, I mean it is ridiculous to imagine but the noises were attracted to him, as if he controlled them. Rubenstein later claimed that in deposition he the noises in his head were driving the words from his mouth, that he was possessed to reveal himself, he could not control himself.

Compound this fucking noise with the noise of the screaming voices coming through the phone, demanding to know if we had erased the problems. Everyone, but everyone was calling me to find out if there were loose ends. What was I to tell them, that there were more loose ends than could be sewn?

Chapter 11 - Arthur Andersen & Enron

The beginning of the end. Crossbow Ventures had hired Arthur Andersen to conduct an audit of the companies for further investment and they were on to the second set of companies. Fucking we had the patents out the door, the ole switcheroo almost completed, when auditors came in. Crossbow’s funds two-thirds SBA monies on SBIC loans and this was bad, really bad. We would have to destroy the evidence everywhere, we would have to get rid of the dual companies, and we would need unprecedented political favors from the dirtiest of dirty politicians. Talk about a nightmare, talk about the nuclear migraine, day and night, again, it was as if I could only hear Eliot through it, my every thought about him. The calls were nonstop now, partner meetings every hour or so it seemed. The firm decided that we would need to have the highest politicians involved to block anywhere Eliot could strike, take over as much of Congress too, trouble could spread. We had one thing going for us, nobody, including Andersen knew yet of the magnanimity of our crimes. If we destroyed Andersen and Enron in some form of concocted scandal, we could shift the onslaught of questions before anyone knew better. How to get rid of a public company, especially one that was almost the inheritor of the stolen Iviewit technologies and how could we destroy the number one accounting firm before they caught on? Everything we had worked so hard to do to steal the technologies now foiled, it was as if someone was exposing us from the inside or watching us from the outside but that could not be, we were watching Eliot and his friends every move.

Huizenga's former company, Blockbuster, had just released a press release with Enron, to become the largest provider of broadband internet streaming media and now it would all have to die. Fuck Fuck Fuck, I hated Eliot more, somehow, without lifting a finger he was orchestrating this despite there being any indication that he could. People were starting to think we were crazy when we were talking about Eliot. Eliot might now have to die, if for no other reason, to see if the noise ceased too. The goons at Enron were already booking astronomical revenue projections based on owning Eliot’s technologies as we promised and now that they had booked the revenue, it was going to be a fucking nightmare to redact them. We now had almost every lawyer between Foley & Lardner and our firm, looking for ideas to deny due process to this unfolding nightmare in the event any Shareholder started to call in investigatory bodies regarding their fraudulent stock we issued. We would now have a whole list of political positions necessary to buy off, Jack Abramoff would be perfect, and so someone made contact with him to see if we could get some favors and right quick. My adrenalin was pumping non-stop, not in excitement anymore but driven on fear that at any moment, people could piece together our schemes. In some respects we had become convinced that the only way to get out of this may in the end be killing ourselves, would his voice be the last I heard, would it start again in the afterlife, I was going fucking mad.

Chapter 12 - Who Are These People: Friends, Friends, Friends…The Dollar Deal

OK – I mean here we were, with him having just stolen off with the entire office as we were shredding. Arthur Andersen was shredding the Enron papers and if they ever found out the truth about why Enron was suddenly going to diverge into the multi-media market and where his patents were going, well that is for another day. At least Kenneth Lay, if you can believe anything anymore, blew a gasket. Bush, to avoid having Lay nark him out, had either to off him or find him a nice African hideout to retire in, in disguise. Unlike Regan in the Iran Contra affair, Lay could not be shown to have sudden Alzheimer’s under fire he was far to smart and he could never be trusted to pull of an act like that.

Chapter 13 - The Cover Up, Throwing Elections

Only a few loose ends, we could pull it off still, we would have to destroy him to do it. We could not give up now, although we should have, no one was really onto the whole fraud yet, but people were coming from every direction, scratching the surface. We were in too deep though, we could lose everything if he figured it all out, our houses, our cars, our real estate, our wives, everything. In fact, if convicted of these crimes, the prison time for the federal and international legal violations would be several hundred years. This was not like a mere Enron business fraud against shareholders of a company, petty white-collar stuff. These crimes were frauds against the United States and Foreign Nations in unholy amounts, including violations of the Constitution, law and human rights, some crimes like Treason could bring death or life sentences. No, we would have to buy off a Presidency, perhaps all of Congress, the Justice Department and the courts, the tab, if possible, enormous.

How to avoid prosecution? Royalty split with cover up participants. New York – Florida – The USPTO, OyVey. This is crime far beyond Enron (footnote that Enron going to broadband should have raised a brow and they already were thinking they would be benefactors, the perfect crime so close) but this is a crime against history, a crime against the government of the United States, crime against the Commerce Department and crime against Supreme Courts. I mean the pie was getting thin fast. Well we had an ace in the hole and although he appeared on the surface a diehard Republican lawyer, CEO of Foley & Lardner, Michael Grebe was a fucking military psycho with a plan for a new world order. Grebe was already plotting the overthrow of America in coup d’état, a plan to overcome the heat, a plan that was insane. This Vietnam psycho actually had already been planning the overthrow of America in order to establish a New World Order for years. Grebe was already well entrenched in the Republican party and had been seeding the grounds for a coup since Reagan, planting corrupt people in high places, working with a group the Federalists to take over the Federal Courts and become invincible from law.

Grebe was possessed with the technologies for a different reason than the rest of us who were in for the money. Grebe was in it for the power, seeing this opportunity as the funding vehicle for all of his nihilistic visions. Grebe saw that with the money from the technologies he could finance his way into politics, to destroy politics and create a controlled government, one where nothing could stand in his myopic vision for America, which I might add was sick and Hitlarian. Grebe’s plan on the other hand, a top down overthrow of the government, was the only way I could also see remaining out of prison for the rest of my natural life and so I gave a thumbs up to the plan. Proskauer had been representing the Skull (Scull) & Bones of Yale for years. Adding the Boneheads who had great political operatives and controlled the CIA, now gave us good reach into most political scumbags, many planted already for their New World Order nonsense. Grebe backing these Republican losers of past, flush with Eliot’s invention money, made a strong argument that we could pull this whole thing off. We would need a presidential puppet with the ability to get rid of those in key cabinet posts to replace with our criminal friends. We would now have the cavalry necessary to block complaints against us, no matter where the Iviewit shareholders took their woes and evidences. Grebe, who had earned the nickname Goebbels in this surreal yet very real reincarnation of Nazi ideals, confident that once in control he could get guys in at Justice, stack the Supreme Courts, take over the Defense Department and basically make us bulletproof to any justice. In private conversations with Grebe though, you saw something more demonic, you saw that he was not only interested in blocking Iviewit but that once his plan enacted he had grander ideas of where to take America. This fucking nutcase was obsessed with Iran and Iraq and he was contemplating rewriting the Constitution to allow leaders of the mass to oversight their subjects through invasions of privacy reminiscent of Hitler. If we could steal their intellectual properties and violate free commerce, we could gain access to almost anything. Grebe scared me a bit because he would start with Iviewit and then digress into things like a catalyst terror event to frighten American's like another bombing of the World Trade Center, another Pearl Harbor, something that would make them give their rights up voluntarily and diffuse anyone from digging into the crimes, two birds…

Giving Grebe what he needed to quash, crush and kill Iviewit could have far-reaching impact on so many other things. Nothing mattered more now than blocking Iviewit or so I thought at the time. Now, looking back, I may have the deaths of many of America's children on my hands and as I begin to ponder this, that noise in my fucking head turns to blaring static that blurs my mind, whereby I start to have true feelings of horror for my actions. At the time, nobody thought Goebbels would get much farther in his plan than blocking Iviewit as nobody could see the Avalanche trickling. Goebbels had world domination on his mind and Iviewit appeared to work well for his plan, the funding source, the reason he could achieve his place in history. What were they feeding these West Point cadets, perhaps Grebe had received a dose of Gulf War Cocktail, early on in the testing phase, it was rumored they first experimented on Nam Soldiers and Vets with the cocktails. Convinced that the mass was sheepish, easily executable and that America had become a slum to blacks since the abolishment of slavery, Grebe would conceive of ways to rid entire sections of the country. Once he even prophesized that he could take down the World Trade Centers and pull the wool over Americas eyes to make them think they were being attacked. With something as grand as that, Grebe muttered on, the military aggressively called into action using the cover of terrorism. There were some of us, especially when the Trade Centers actually fell, who knew that this delusional lunatic was truly out of control but nothing we could do would stop him. We would join Grebe in hell, so we had to work to defend his efforts, keeping silent to his madness, afraid of what would happen to us at exposure of Grebe. I felt almost a sense of guilt for the dead firefighters killed, I knew my part, I had to block this from my mind, but it seemed it took all of my energy just to keep out Eliot. If America knew the truth of what was happening there would be civil unrest like never before, hanging us for Treason, I was not sure that in the end this would not be scenario.

Chapter 14 - The Dirty Courts, Dirty Law

New mottos for our country to replace ''Equal Justice under Law'' and ''Justice the Guardian of Liberty'' on the walls of the Supreme Court “No Justice under the Law” and “Justice the Guardian of the Guilty” are more apropos. Buying off state Supreme Courts, this was so out of control. So possessed one does not see ones actions as psychotic, certainly, psychotics see themselves as normal. Would we have to buy off the United States Supreme Court, would we have to kill some to get others on? Sandra Day Quote and Rehnquist reference.

Chapter 15 - Siege on the United States Patent & Trademark Office: Invention Theft, The Second Oldest Profession

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDEOKD2s8EE

Central to pulling the crime off would be control of the Commerce Department, we would need more people in place inside the offices, we already had a few planted inside who were aiding and abetting our other patent crimes but blocking Iviewit would take a whole lot more. Goebbels was already planning a coup on the elections to get George W. Bush II in place and if and when he succeeded with this election fraud, Bush would appoint new Commerce officials at the top and as he said, once it was completed, the patent office would be as wide open as a "Vietnam whore". He was convinced that once in, we would be able to rob it at will, it would be additional funding for his takeover of the world, the end of free commerce, a concept he abhorred, he would never part with his billion, he had fought hard to amass his wealth, he would eliminate estate taxes so that wealth could consolidate. He would gain access to America's jewels at the patent office, wipe out any annoying inventors, and then control the patent office through patent pools. Goebbels and Rubenstein had come together and in a bit of psychotic revelry, Nazi and Jew worked together to create pools and standards, whereby they could control invention, derail the revenues to the government, choose the standards at will and rape America and its inventors. Fucking brilliance gone mad, in fact, the crazier it got, the less I felt I could do, the more impotent I became.

Spiraling out of control, this was a crime that was quickly becoming more than merely stealing some inventions from would be inventors to something far more arcane.

Chapter 16 - Siege on the United States

Now people were starting to lose their minds, great minds of once great attorneys, law enforcement officials and justices going fucking mad. To evade the inevitable, especially where these patent matters last a lifetime, was worse than just surrendering but everyone kept saying if we could just control it, it would be over any day. The madness as they thought through various scenarios of how to deny due process, how to abuse law, how to re-write code to block Eliot, how to control the courts and law enforcement, simply beyond belief. All to beat one man or was there some other force behind him, around him. I finally began realizing nothing Eliot said to me when we met was insane, even the part about wanting to create a Thought Journal and use the revenues from G-d’s portion of the patent royalty to fund the charity. Not remotely insane compared to those around me losing their minds fast in every way all suffering hemorrhoids, ulcers, heartburn, stress, shitting blood, heart attacks and strokes, like Egyptian plagues. Sleepless and sexless nights now our norm, nightmares about Eliot, that made a man impotent night and day. Neurotic, psychotic, sociopathic, pathological thoughts running through our heads, normal thoughts could no longer penetrate our brains. Eliot told me in our first meetings, same he told Lewin, Rubenstein, investors, employees, family members and every single person who saw and became involved with the technologies that if this oath to G-d were not carried out by those sworn to h-m, hell would follow. To see us now desecrating law, desecrating our country that so many had died to give us such freedom, desecrating the Constitution I once believed in, desecrating Truth, Justice and the American Way, was more than even I could handle.

At first, it seemed cool, we knew that could pull off the first or second round of attacks he or any of his friends could launch, hell we had all their stolen royalties, which were already in tens of billions of dollars to use against him. Yet, we did not foresee that in beating him out of everything we were losing everything, we were creating hell for ourselves, I hardly could choke down food at this point and have it taste like anything other than death. Each level we had to block was another canto. I am ashamed to say that I was beginning to have conscience about the magnanimity of what we were doing, as I was teaching my children all the wrong things and ruining their worlds in the process. I was teaching them lawlessness, everything not moral, and they could see it suck the life of me yet they were enthralled with what we were doing. My wife certainly wasn’t, as the police report clearly shows, I mean I was heading to prison for a lengthy stay if this scam on the country and everything failed, and she is turning me in for slamming into some poor asshole drunk to the cops. I could have the sorest ass in the history of prison.

We, the elite spoiled rotten children of the world, silver-spooned from birth, found that other than our parents’ money we were worthless. That our elitist attitudes built on the delusion that we were better than common working people were and yet we never earned anything in our lives and we were now running, excuse me, ruining the country. People like George W. Jr., our leader, the most silver-spooned failure of us all, passing college only due to his father and grandfather’s name and handsome bones to Yale and Scull & Bones. Worse yet, Bush was a prior failure in every business he ran, claiming bankruptcy at every failure, the easy way out of his debt. Here now running the country was perhaps the lowest IQ leader of the free world, more apathetic than Hitler was, at least Hitler earned his way up and could orate. Bush was worthless yet easy to get into position, all we had to do was throw the election and surround him with some other real sick fuckers who never earned a hard day’s work and would follow orders to be elated. Cheney and Rumsfeld were perfect to surround spoiled Bush, they hated the common person only because they were common paupers who could not make it in society fairly, hating they were not part of the elite and would do anything for acceptance. In fact, they hated the common person so much that it was easy for them to try to pull the wool over their stupid fucking eyes, to rob them of their savings accounts with the Reagan administration ripping off the savings and loans from a bunch of retired old fuckers.

To put the Bush family into power again through manipulated elections was not the hard part with Grebe running the Republican National Committee as Chief Counsel, controlling them was not that hard either. In fact, ripping off Eliot for their own gain did not take much arm-twisting, they knew all the right people to help plant in key positions to aid our efforts. All we would have to promise a Texan in the Whitehouse and his father’s cronies was an increase in the oil prices, a piece of the technologies valued now at well over a trillion dollars over twenty years. With that, they would rewrite law to get away with the crime, stack the Supreme Court with Supreme Idiots put in just to deflect Eliot, kill Eliot if we could get them to it would be even better for us using the CIA or the likes. Play the Bonesmen, get them gung-ho on how much money there would be, money to fund their secret society of spoiled Rots, a society secretly founded by Hitler Youth, money to fund their Treasonous Coup. I hear these Bonesmen eat on Hitler’s chinaware and rumored that George W’s grandfather stole Geronimo’s bones from his coffin to earn his skulls and we elected two of his descendants to the White House, well, one elected for us. Our President is a member of a secret society with his friend Kerry who also is a Bonesmen. Frightening that either way the second term election for Bush went we would have a Bonesmen in the House, which was their typical way of gaining and maintaining political spots once they were in. Play both sides with someone who cares about the Bones and CFR agenda far more than We the People.

The Cheney's included because Lynne Cheney already knew all about Iviewit through her board membership at Lockheed Martin and once we confirmed that Lockheed had never seen anything like these technologies, we knew we had a winner on our hands and so did she. Lockheed was the biggest company in military digital imaging and video worldwide and if they did not have it in a black box then nobody did. Cheney, who had lost at everything he ever did, finally saw opportunity for himself both politically and socially by stealing the technologies. Goebbels and Cheney a scary pair and once they teamed up we began doing crimes at every level of debauchery, Cheney had promised that if Goebbels could get Bush planted, with him as second in command, they would be unstoppable and their New World Order would finally have a chance. Cheney was like Goebbels in that both of these nutcases were more about the NWO than about just ripping off the Iviewit shareholders, there was a fear in me that they had far grander plans of something very sick but I was blinded by fear of being caught and so I went along with their schemes.

Chapter 17 - Nazi America

Everything was out of fucking control! Everything I ever thought about stealing these technologies, the opposite has transpired. Originally this was going to be easy, now about the furthest thing from easy was stealing the technologies and harder yet the cover-up. I mean we started with such a simple plan, now we were overthrowing the government to deny due process and procedure, we were turning the Justice Department upside down, we were at wars that would have never happened if I had not sold my soul and legal career to criminal activities. Worse, the monsters involved in the scam at this point were reeling in insanity and the technologies seemed remote to the whole fucking psychotic shit going in the world due to their subversive and treasonous crimes. Once corruption had succeeded Justice for this little bitty technology, shit just mushroomed out of control. This Grebe from Foley & Lardner with his New World Order ways had found a springboard to launch an all out offensive on the United States for his world domination strategy. Proskauer, well Joseph Proskauer was a colored man in the underworld and plots of overthrow of a President and preventing action against a boycott of Nazi goods that could have saved many Jews was his legacy? I was a goy at a Jewish Democratic New York law firm and I swear it was becoming a law firm for the Third Reich and this Grebe’s vision had many enthralled, many other colored men, all colored blind it appeared. Yet, from the election fraud on, top down control in Florida and New York, as well as, federal top down control. With Bush and Cheney in command or should I say Cheney and his bitch Bush or should I say Grebe and his bitches Cheney and Rove, what could go wrong?

Grebe and Cheney make a scary pair at dinner, they talk is as if you are at the planning of the bombing of London in World War II with Hitler in the peak of delusions of grandeur. Grebe sounded like he was fighting Charlie in Nam when he spoke of destroying the Bernstein family first and then getting rid of any Shareholders who made waves, one by one. Who would not have believed Grebe at this stage, after successfully throwing the Presidency and the road to success seemed paved with roses, no one asked what Plan B was if this whole lunacy was exposed, no one. Not one of four thousand lawyers in this fucking mess ever thought it through. We envisioned a slam-dunk on Iviewit, I would get my dues finally, perhaps my wife would lay me, Grebe already on to other things he could do with his newly found power. Grebe laughed, “The American people are sheep”! Finally, the People so asleep and brainwashed that with a little press manipulation and maybe some phony wars, all the New World Order objectives could finally be complete while they slept. Grebe’s list of crimes to rape America’s businesses and entrepreneurs was out of control but we were all so overwhelmed with his overthrow of the Government and Justice to block Iviewit that we were all starting to believe anything was possible.

Assigned to continuing to rob the United States Patent & Trademark Office, I was overwhelmed that we were going to start directly robbing inventors as they applied for patents, this truly was easier than candy from a baby. Others in the firms were assigned to robbing FEMA, we never thought this Grebe was planning to wipe out parts of New Orleans, he called it a Nigger hole, he hated blacks and had funded a book about blacks being inferior to whites, as I said before I never thought it would get this far. Grebe was planning this coup for years, he had allies in Skull and Bones and all these other neo Nazi freak organizations, and his plan was far more intense than just robbing Iviewit, Eliot and his friends. He had no worries, they were fucking above the law, they were the law, and he could piss on the Constitution at will. Grebe had a team for everything Nazi including how to turn law against the people, so he commissioned a team to get the country into a war on “terror” and “terrorists.” Well versed in war, Grebe was a fucking psycho, planning to herd the American Sheep into giving up their rights and freedoms voluntarily based on perceived threats of terror. The Sheep would Bah and then the real rapping of America could begin. With total control of the Executive Branch and not a single honest lawyer or politician unable to bribe with Iviewit heist money, any obstinate ones threatened and intimidated away, this Grebe fucker planned the sickest crimes of propaganda ever on America. Remember, Grebe backed Regan; Grebe backed Bush I and these New World Skull fuckers were way into big crime, moving the country once already into war for war profiteering and oil price rigging, they didn’t care who died or how many soldiers died for their fucked up NWO plan. Reagan with Iran Contra, Bush I with the Iraq I with his oil buddy and family friend Saddam Hussein, the guy who he put into Iraq to fight the Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war while he was bumbling buffoon at the CIA. At that time, Bush was the head of the CIA for a short while, yet he actually got his position in oil secured with Saddam to replace the loss for Texas oil and feed Texans, like vampires, oil again. Texas ran out of oil and then started a siege on the financial markets of the United States to continue to pay their oil-inflated mortgages. One scam after another; the Savings and Loan debacle, the Junk Bond market and Insurance Company foreclosures, elevating slowly to bigger and bigger crimes like robbing the fucking patent office.

I was willingly duped into believing that this would all work with no problems, nobody could ever catch on and if they did it really did not matter, Grebe now controlled the Supreme Court, the Justice Department, Governors in key states, the Bar Association and every venue one would have to complain against us. As Grebe often said, “if they are catching on to this or that scheme, we can always rewrite the laws” and this is where I started thinking he might be a bit mad. The Patriot Act proved me wrong though and it is funny in a sick way that that relates to Iviewit but once implemented, its use became far more sinister. Grebe, knowing that Iviewit had filed a barrage of complaints needed to find out who knew what and when, so he assigned a team to try and get the phone, computer and other personal records of everyone at Iviewit and he needed a way to do it without breaking thousands of laws. Therefore, change one law to break a thousand was his plan. He had to get American’s into a panic mode, he had to have them voluntarily give up their rights to their freedoms and he had a plan, again a very demented plan but we were living in dementia already so everything seemed normal.

The plan was remarkable, he had almost pulled it off once before with another friend of the Bush family, Osama Bin Laden. Bin Laden, another Bush I plant handpicked to protect the Bush family Afghani drug money from the Russians. The CIA was profiting off the drugs immensely, the inner city crack thing was all about subduing “dumb niggers” in the inner city until they could dealt with, according to Grebe. G0d knows what meant by dealt with but this sick bastard was planning for a mass murder of various people he did not find White enough throughout America. Grebe told us the first World Trade Center bombing was really meant to instill panic in the public so that they would begin marching to a new drummer, so that their attention could be diverted away from the atrocities being committed by our government, the first “wag the dog” terrorist attack. Grebe, behind the scenes of all this madness for so many years, now had an opportunity to redo that plan that went wholly awry with Iran/Contra when the public became aware that something was awry. For Iran/Contra he said, when things got messy he just had Reagan feign Alzheimer’s and go quietly to pasture. The plot stopped midstream and a fucking democrat then won back the Presidency Grebe had worked so hard to conquer. A Democrat won no less, one Grebe would vow to destroy, and all it took was a little indiscretion for a blowjob.

With Clinton out of the way, which coincided nicely with the Iviewit cover-up he would have to capture back the crown by hook or crook when Iviewit like a miracle fell into his lap. Iviewit, where Grebe had saved thousands of attorneys from possible total loss, now had them all willing to sell their souls to his philosophies. Grebe had no fear of legal repercussions, he now had Democratic allies in his Nazi scheme, and he could play both sides of the political scene with equal degradation and complicity. The first election fraud was masterful, he had plans A, B and C, all involving ballot rigging and the likes, all designed to make it look close but no matter the true American vote, he would be offsetting those with crooked votes in places he had influence and control. Proskauer for their other frauds gave Grebe a new idea for legal recruits. To get dirty lawyers, they would run the Bar Associations as they had been in New York for years. Recruit lawyers for discounted Bar Association penalties, lawyers in trouble with nothing to lose. With a favor from the Bar Association, their names cleared of their wrongdoing, kind of like asking a mob boss for a favor and knowing you are in debt. These Bar recruits could be controlled and bribed to achieve his maniacal political and legal ends, with this group in his pocket he could get laws changed almost at will, laws to protect himself from his and his underlings’ crimes.

The Patriot Act, the most unpatriotic piece of legislation was his own masterpiece, a masterpiece of insanity that knew no bounds to lawlessness to achieve his ends years ahead of his intended take over, now all he needed was a way to get it enacted. Drop the Trade Centers, again use Osama as the fall guy and this time ensure the buildings collapsed using controlled demolition of the buildings using implosion techniques, covered up in a terrorist attack.[ii] Now there were skeptics at first but Grebe was amazing in his glory, his military background was like Rubenstein’s patent background, one of maligned intent. America had paid for this man’s services and he took advantage of them to plot his own plan for America, for the world; where Hitler failed, he could succeed. Grebe studied Hitler and other meglofreaks and like a lunatic, we found him often quoting Mien Kampf as inspiration for a NWO. With masterful propaganda, they could stage an “event” that the sheep would bah at and the way he earned his wings as “Goebbels” was for the staging of World Trade Center II and pulling off the propaganda to make Americans believe it was a terrorist attack. This time they got it right, they had certain news publications hard wired to their point of view, having long been planting in the media world slowly to brainwash the Sheep. Everyone in the country would follow the government in shock and get on the war bandwagon, the media would play the terror card over, and over, and over, broadcasting the terror message like it was a No. 1 Pop Hit.

With the Trade Centers falling and all three of them defying the laws of physics regarding the collapse of steel structures and the American Sheep buying into it, we knew this would be easier than anticipated. No matter the fire intensity steel structures endure, they do not fall straight down in free fall. Steel structures melt and bend but only where the heat would be high enough[62] but never do they implode inward down on themselves, a fact that anyone with half a physics brain knows. The investigations into the building demise also derailed in the name of this or that National Security reason, the excrements of the buildings rushed off the scene to prevent evidence gathering. Grebe knew that with enough BS following the initial staged attack using the airplanes painted into the video where necessary, that the initial impact would be lost in the ensuing panic and fear that he would generate in the heart of every American man, woman, and child. Fear of a little dicked man Osama Bin Laden and his force of 52, like a deck of cards. 52 terrorists, against a country that has taken on major world powers in real wars where many buildings really collapsed and who were armed to the teeth and funded well, yet Grebe was convinced that with the initial event he could engineer the rest, following of course Goebbels example gone mad. Instantly, following the staged Trade Center event, Grebe would propose his masterpiece legislation the Patriot Act. Disguised in patriotism, anyone who did not accept the restrictive terms and loss of freedoms the Patriot Act contained labeled anti-American. Once again it worked and you had to give Grebe credit, it even made a little of the Iviewit ringing in my fucking head seem more distant, yet I feared it was growing in its silence, an instinct I should have trusted all along.

The Sheep followed along and took the entire bait, hook line and sinker, the Patriot Act was signed with dissent frowned on to such extent that even the most liberal feared not backing something that appeared to be necessary to prevent terrorism. I am not sure why the American People sold out so quickly but the propaganda was flawless, perhaps they learned from Hitler’s mistake and found better ways to pull the wool over the trusting Germans eyes, I mean Americans. The country mesmerized by fear, congresspersons sold out the Constitution in fear in the face of an enemy, as anticipated with a bunch of draft dodging cowards. If Osama were not really a Bush ally, he would have sent waves of attacks on the United States. Osama laughing at the American Cowards willing to sell out their freedoms to terrorists threats so small, after having conquered enemies so large but Grebe was right, with nonstop propaganda screaming TERROR TERROR TERROR, Americans would act just like the German people did. The cardinal rule when dealing with terrorists, as any true military man will tell you, is to bend to the terrorist even a bit, even in the face of one hundred school children held hostage or worse yet one of your own, is taboo. Ask an Israeli or anyone who has dealt with a terrorist threat. The goal of terrorism is to cause such panic and so most warriors accept it as a part of warfare. Terrorist acts are an effective form of warfare, allowing the weaker side in a battle to use terror for advantage, to force the oppressor to stop the oppression or force them to the bargaining table. Nevertheless, this was not a real war of terror and according to Grebe’s vision, it would allow companies like Carlyle Group and Halliburton the opportunity to gauge the American Sheep even more, further bankrupting them while filling their war profiteering chest. Before the Sheep knew what hit them, Grebe would have bilked the country blind. Now with Grebe free of worry for his crimes, cloaked under the guise of terrorism, he could achieve anything he wanted, violate all checks and balances, and become the power behind the scenes, pulling the strings of the “Decider” Bush, but really, he would be deciding, Grebe always trying to stay hidden from public scrutiny.

At first, it seemed cool, we were unstoppable, anybody who dissented somehow started to disappear or quite down with a shotgun to the face. Or as in the case of Chief Justice Rehnquist who when Iviewit hit the Supreme Court got cold feet, they just put him to sleep a little early, a pillow, a crime of compassion for his ailment, old age. Even though he was part of the original CFR team, he had limits and a conscience to some degree and in his age, these traits were starting to weigh on him. With Rehnquist now out of the way, they needed to get a Skull Fucker NWO boy at the helm of the Supreme Court. First on the NWO Court plan, nominate Harriet Miers, anticipating rejection and outrage from all parties, a ruse so they could sneak Sam Alito on. Roberts perfect to replace Rehnquist, as a leg up for helping kill Rehnquist, justifying his seat on the Court of Clowns. Grebe felt even more powerful with the Supremes in his pocket. Grebe planned a coup on the Supreme Court, planting Justices through Regan and Bush I, and now he almost controlled the Supreme Court. With Grebe’s RNC connections planted in the Republican Party to subvert the Party, Grebe seized the Republican Party. Like a shark pool during a feeding frenzy, lawless lawyers out of control, their grand plan of world domination seemed moments away and I was to be in at the top.

Goodbye America, I could not help thinking that somehow this is not what I wanted for my children, even if they were at the upper echelon of the ruling class, I knew the fate of Nazi’s and their children and I could not wipe that thought from creeping in. I hoped in the back of my mind that it would end, knowing that eventually these crimes would start effecting people I cared about but there was very little I could do about it now. Whistleblow to whom, whistleblowing led directly to Grebe. I kept busy working with my group to infiltrate the Commerce Department, reading patent applications filed before they hit the patent office, if only we could make a first to invent patent system, we could rip off the inventions when the inventor disclosed them to his attorneys, filing applications for ourselves ahead of the inventors. Grebe set up new servers for the RNC to divert White House emails, using the RNC servers as his personal back channel communication for his NWO directives, violating all record retention laws. The siege on the Commerce Department was like a cakewalk for him. Encourage inventors to think they could file online and have security was another idea, intercepting the filings first. Then have the misdirected patent applications reviewed by Grebe’s engineers from Foley & Lardner first. If the patents deemed worthy, Foley had a bag full of tricks to deny the inventor his inventions and royalties and beat him to the punch. Again, with the playing field upside down, this crime would be taking candy from a baby. Everything was growing more complicated as laws had to be broken endlessly in efforts to cover up prior laws broken. So many people removed from longstanding government jobs in order to derail Constitutional checks and balances, it was getting hard to keep the lid on the fact that the scale of justice had tipped over. Tears from Lady Liberties veiled eyes.

Justice derailed by Gonzales, Bush’s dirty little Texan Spic, as Grebe called him but perfect for the job of dismantling Justice for a little piece of the American dream, despite how he had to obtain success. Gonzales selling out every hard working Mexican that ever came to America and all they stood for, a token Spick, a true Uncle Tomasa. A disgrace to everything about Justice that American blood spilled defending. Just like Rehnquist, the minute Ashcroft new that Iviewit was on the way up, he told Grebe et al. to throw in the towel and take a few men down instead of the whole lot. Grebe would have nothing of it, called Ashcroft a coward, claiming Ashcroft was soft hearted, and then Grebe reminded him how deep he already was in, no way out. Grebe promised if Ashcroft would go quietly, Gonzales would takeover. Ashcroft knew that the house of cards would collapse on this Coup for crimes worse than any administration before it. These were not just crimes but constituted Treason & Sedition, Violations of Human Rights and War Crimes, a usurping of everything American for everything Nazism. Concentration camps set up across the world to deprive dissenters of their plans rights. Grebe was deep into rewriting human torture treatises and the fucking Geneva Convention to suit his needs. Grebe’s plan, to have an extermination camp on US soil where he could take anyone he deemed a terrorist threat, whatever in the hell that means and deprive them of habeas corpus and let them rot or die from torture or sheer destitute. Grebe was thinking like the Vietnamese did to Americans they captured, he was still living in a fox hole in Nam it seemed and Guantanamo Cuba was perfect to create Camp Gitmoschwitz. His secret torture chambers for incorrigibles’ would be offshore where he was outside US laws but he really feared that other countries could get messy. Grebe quickly worked to make Camp Gitmoschwitz in the US, complete and write protections for his crimes built into new terror legislation he was writing to offset the crimes. I guess this would be tantamount to the Nazis attempt to write laws making burning people alive and pulling the gold from their dead bodies legal. Grebe despised the Founders of the Constitution for granting freedom on those that did not deserve it. Grebe hated freedom and everything it stood for, since Regan was in office Grebe’s plan was slowly but surely working to undermine the Constitution’s protections with more and more plants. Every post that controlled law and order now usurped by dirty lawyers and politicians and Grebe now possessed an endless list of Republicans and from Proskauer’s list a whole lot of Democratic scum. A message sent loud and clear to any lawyer thinking of filing a lawsuit against their madness when Cheney shotgun blasted a lawyer in the face and threatened if he raised his voice… The lawyer forced to apologize for the shot in the face, Cheney never questioned by prosecutors, absolutely no investigation. Any investigation of course would go nowhere, as the United States Attorney General was in the pocket of Bush/Cheney. Grebe cared not even if the people found out of his crimes, so brazen now, everyone could be replaced, in fact, he ordered Gonzales to fire anyone who was investigating anything like election fraud or Iviewit or anything anti NWO and a list was made.

Ah, but after 6 years of virtually unstoppable power, where he remained in hiding, hidden behind his Nazi SS face plates to his master plan, something went wholly fucking wrong, things we thought were in control went out of control when the Democrats took back the Senate. Holy shit, Grebe had no plan B, like Hitler, it looked like plan B would be a coward’s bullet. Firing squad for people like me to coward to pull the trigger on ourselves, you know attorneys can be beyond cowardly and always are around when the crowd goes mad, fresh blood for the People to rewrite law and order on. Grebe was fucking fuming that somehow the election seemed rigged against his rigging and he could not see how what was a for sure winner went the other way. Who had thrown a chink in the code, how did it happen? We should have wised up, given up at this point, but no, not even in the face of a growing consensus with a new Senate and division growing by working class Americans with his NWO party policies on both sides. Even Republicans who appeared fooled seemed to be waking up to the sins of their party and the party was ripping at the seams. How did it go wrong? Who was working against us and how were they succeeding? Grebe was incensed and a real kick in the balls came when the People elected Nancy Pelosi to run Congress, a “real bitch and a matriarchal cunt,” as Grebe liked to refer to her. He said the whop bitch could cause massive problems with that nigger Conyers at the helm of Justice at the House Judiciary Committee.

Things began a bad spiral, it was like we were being pulled apart by unseen forces, but I could hear it in the back of my fucking head and now it had grown in silence as I feared and fuck we were on our way to hell. Grebe started talking mad, assassinations of some of these people. All out war on their characters to destroy their lives and families but many in the ranks were slowly dissenting. Everything was going to surface, day by day, began a slow unraveling. Grebe on the other hand was plotting World War III with Zbigniew Brzezinski and the likes. Ideas were out there about provoking Russia with Star Wars like threats used in previous administrations, provoking China for poisoning our pet food and contaminating our food, provoking Iran where they had still some favors pending, provoking the whole middle east, the French, most of civilized world other than England who had been helping him all along with NWO domination. Not that he intended on keeping the fucking Brits in the master plan but they were great partners in crime as Blair was another sellout to his people for a promise of a place high up in the NWO and a piece of the Iviewit technologies. World War III where he could conquer and dominate the world resources as his personal pleasure chest, we were all told of a world where our only work would be working the Sheep and tending flocks. Grebe was mad and I was starting to think of giving up but there was no one left to go to that could be trusted or not replaced if they attempted to expose the coup. They had completely sabotaged whistle blower efforts. In fact, they even began exposing spies whose husbands opposed their ways, who would not falsify information so as the whole world would think America was attacking Iraq for real reasons like WMD’s. Joseph Wilson was not bribable nor did he cower to threats, imagine a man of will and integrity with a CIA COVERT spy for a wife. Therefore, like a blast to the face, Wilson’s wife Valerie was exposed as a spy and her career and many other operatives lives where in instant danger. A government that exposes spies because of their husband’s actions is fucking crazy but again these were not men of valor running the government and the CIA. Exposing a spy was Treason but with laws in place and no one to try them or prosecute, who cared was Grebe's view. Imagine that fucking Cheney and Bush were ballsey enough to state that they felt sorry for the convicted felon, I. Scooter Libby. Libby, the fall guy for Rove and Cheney in Plamegate and they cared less about the damage done to a princess spy, her family and CIA operatives who were fighting to protect America from threats, real Patriots our Leaders turned out to be. This scandal will damage the credibility of the CIA eternally. Spies will not spy for you unless completely assured the only time they risk exposure will be for the national good. A Doomed Spy, as Sun Tzu termed them, honored to die spying learning only at the end that he was destined on a mission to death.

Something else was eating at us all, the fact that somehow there seemed to be this invisible force peeling at the Grebe master plan. A powerful force somehow centered on Eliot, no matter how we tried to find how he could be involved or orchestrating the attack, we could find nothing. No one was helping Eliot that we could see. Not even with the Patriot Act letting us violate private phone records and mail, spy on them with bogus National Security Letters, tap their phones, no matter, if people were helping Eliot they were invisible. The fact that Grebe was being exposed bit by bit, they were impenetrable from the outside as there was no inside, it seemed whoever might be helping Eliot prepared well in advance of Grebe’s catching on that he was exposed and busted. Strategy meetings were turning into blame fests, full of distrust and no one knew whom the enemy was anymore. People started fleeing the inner circle, some already caught up in endless investigations that appeared over night, from every direction. Grebe was losing support his claim that no investigation would ever take place with his Coup in place, a fallacy. Now paranoia set in and they began looking for leaks infiltrating the schemes. “Are we played, if so, who could have played us and how” and Grebe was asking these questions now that is when I realized that he was mad. I wished for the courage or cowardice to commit suicide, fearing repercussion for my actions I was too cowardly. Funny enough, I was tired of this entire damn battle, or war as Eliot claimed, this fucking Eliot somehow was kicking the shit out of us. To stop Eliot we had to destroy our own children’s future for Grebe’s mad plan. Stealing patents is one thing but killing 3000+ soldiers and over a half million innocent Iraqi’s and Afghanis’ was not in my former mental capacity as a petty thief lawyer/criminal. Realizing I was central to the cause of the demise of my country, I could hear Eliot’s laugh in the back of my head. You think I’m nuts but he is there, I can start to hear his words on meeting him again, his challenges to my integrity. Packs with G0d, I laughed, ridiculed him and ignored even a remote possibility of his sanity. The first realization that came back in my walk down memory lane was that Eliot claimed to have sold his soul and returned from death on a mission to save the children from their parents or those of them embroiled in greed that were wasting their precious resources in greed.

I overheard a conversation with Eliot’s wife Candice, Eliot was disturbed the technologies were evil in nature v. good due to all this shit it caused their family and friends. Candice retorted that it was perhaps part of Eliot’s mission to save the children. To first cleanse the legal world of the greed and evil that consumed the legal system that now failed to protect even their own children’s world. This fear that no one was protecting the children was one of the first things Eliot told me, so long ago but my mind overlooked it at the time. So focused was I on pick pocketing Eliot of his inventions and yet he may have been looking for evil men like me, when finding them, using them as a pawn in his efforts to fry Nazis and cleanse the world of evil. Was I rooting for Eliot in this regard now, was I rooting for Grebe to go down stopping the insanity, even if it meant my own death? Oh fuck it was horrible, with that little reflection the whole of my head became consumed with what I had missed, what clues might have been available if I had paid attention and meant anything I said to pacify him that I was part of this team of angels he was recruiting. That’s it, Eliot was brought back by angels to earth after his meeting with G0d, awaiting orders from G0d on how to achieve things like the Thought Journal and the Inventions both coming to him in possessed states by voices in his head. The same voices that brought him back to save the kids from their fucked up parents ways and he was looking for the source of the children’s pain, men like Grebe and me and he found them and somehow, fucking somehow, Eliot was destroying them all. Even if it had nothing on the surface to do with Eliot, we could not help but now reconsider what he said and where his powers came from. Eliot was starting to be scary beyond belief, if successful at prosecuting us now, he would have just wiped off the planet one of the greatest evils ever devised to divide and conquer the Peoples of the earth, making the world fall go in a direction opposite of a Thought Journal, to an evil world. Eliot’s Thought Journal where kids globally came together to overcome the problems facing their futures was the force trying to further destroy our entire NWO plans of separating the children to get them to kill each other. Shit I feel like I am writing from his perspective and my life now has importance, albeit sick, I have led a powerful force to the lion’s den and the lion has no idea what has it by the tail. In fact, until it is to late the Lion cannot even see that it is a force of similar interests working against his power and in the end, those who enter the lion’s den who fear no evil and come out alive, usually had a plan going in. Most of those ballsy enough to prophesize the end of evil empires historically where divine in nature. When these prophetic angels came to earth and spoke of their delusions of G0d, the People and Power Establishment questioned them until they proved they had a magic power like the tests of Moses and Jesus. With Eliot, the miracles were the technologies, defined as nothing other than magical. What did the Pharaoh do when Moses approached, he laughed and schemed against Moses further, who simply referred to his G0d and more disaster was heaped upon Pharaoh for each questioning and he further disbelieved and he further was beat by what appeared a singular man with a vision. Against all odds, Moses won. Same for Jesus and many more prophets throughout history who were great and their creativity spawned and attributed to divine forces that fed their spirits. The list is endless of people envied as genius, all with a touch of madness, all too often the ruling elite underestimate the P0wer they were fucking with, blind in greed and other sins of the soul. Jesus overturned the Jewish religious power structure, a rebel angel with a philosophy, again laughed, much like Moses and the Pharaoh. The Jews and Romans warned by Jesus of his angelic nature and their failure to take him seriously, drunk in delusions, brought them disastrous results and the demise of their ways, which had become equally oppressive and skewed against the common man. Fuck, history littered with people who looked as if they singularly beat the man, fought city hall and won but if you ever meet one of them, you should listen first and look for truth before causing them pain, for they invite the pain against them to stand as testament to your evil ways. These Angelic Forces, a force to be reckoned, yet there is no way to reckon when you refuse to relinquish your reign of delusionary power and believe in Angels. Failing to believe you hide from your soul and these Angels politely request that you give all up voluntarily, submit to G0d or else, do not laugh yet. Eliot will live on, where I cannot. Eliot needs neither you, nor me, to confirm his achievements, as he said he already changed the world. The inventions were just a conduit for a bigger picture plan from a bigger picture f0rce that I could not see. Eliot never needed my approval, never needed reward, nor a slap on the back but he had me fooled, believing of my importance in saving the planet. At the time I laughed and coddled him, Eliot was baiting the hook that rings in my head, my importance or impotence in saving the children would come from him extinguishing me. I was bait for the true evil Eliot sought, fed on, evil like Grebe who fed on evil and the hook went deep into our guts. How did Eliot do it, some sort of secret communication with others, invisible smoke signals? We would have to revisit Eliot’s past and our interactions with him to see if there were cryptic messages with ghosts but I knew it was more about revisiting what I had blocked from my mind at the time to find out what he said and with hindsight see how I had taken the bait, how we all had.

Chapter 18 - Revisiting His Background

Ok to see if we missed anything the first thing we had to do was try and remember what had gone through us the first time as fodder but now seemed to be a possible force to reckon with, more a force to succumb to. There are some things in life that are better left alone and I had a feeling this journey back was more about discovering my future than finding his, it was about trying to live again, to find the answer to the ringing, to find if it would ever stop. I began with Eliot’s poetry, all about loving Mother Nature and warning the children about an impending doom through his Dinosaur Story or his Thought Journal. Whichever way I read his poetry, I saw that it was true, the writings discarded as nonsense to the bottom of my file, the first emails sent were now the key to finding out who and what Eliot was before the inventions.

I could not learn of Eliot’s mental state after the inventions without first understanding where he came from. Eliot said things concerning his past that were laughable at the time, as they seemed so fucking outrageous but now I knew it was the key to understanding what we overlooked all along. Eliot had literally fallen from the heavens to me. When we first met, nobody I knew, knew of Eliot, other than his family as he had just moved to Boca Raton from California with the birth of his first son. We learned volumes about Eliot from his father but G0d only knows if Si is playing us all along, making us think his son was an idiot when he had to have known his true genius the whole time, again we bought it hook line and sinker. Desperate to learn anything about how Eliot operated and failing to fact check. I dreaded this task of trying to decode Eliot, this unlocking of my own demons. Seeing what I missed was everything, truly blinded by the fucking technologies, technologies that I could not get out of my head as to how I would steal them and convert them as my own. A cardinal sin to covet what G0d has given to another and now I see my greed blocked me from seeing something far greater. In overlooking the surreal nature of Eliot, I wondered if my soul had any chance left, soul was not a common worry amongst attorneys now days but I was praying there would be a compassionate and forgiving G0d. A G0d that would somehow overlook my actions but I knew from the noise in my head that G0d had already taken my soul on earth, I was a walking fucking Zombie, everywhere and everyone I encountered I felt people could see through me, that they knew the truth and were laughing at me. Suddenly our dirty little secret seemed the only thing I could hear at a cocktail party, I mean were they really talking about me and my part or was I hallucinating, I was truly starting to feel madness overwhelm me.

How did I miss all this initial stuff, we had tapes, I listened to them before but it was like every time I heard them, when he started to explain how the technologies came in dreams, in a vision, my brain instantly went blank and could not process it.

Chapter 19 - Slow Death

Complaints from every direction, evidence knee deep, all we were doing was delaying certain death and long prison sentences.

Chapter 20 - Message of the Devil or Message from an Angel

At once, I understood the importance of his early words to me, of the challenge that I had accepted the promise to be true to them, to G-d and the children. It was in that first meeting that I asked how they came to be, that he warned me that the technology was divine. The meeting we had that I was to busy playing Eliot, or he I, was coming back from my unconscious like a bad LSD flashback. Visions were breaking through in a hellish symphony bit-by-bit, byte-by-byte. I wondered if this was the exact reason why people like Rubenstein and Joao were acting insane, were they having suicidal thoughts and all kinds of strange thoughts of afterlife. We all missed it, he threatened us in the most cavalier way and we ignored it, we had other thoughts running through our greedy minds and he spelled it out in black and white.

I made some calls to the others who were feeling this peculiar way, Lewin’s life he claimed was similarly hanging by a thread, everybody in town knew, his kids were involved and named and this kid had smeared us to every single fucking person in the world it seemed. We trademarked it, yes, at the time, we thought what the hell, and it was his tag line “The Click Heard Round the World™.”[15] We had held off the first wave or two of investigations but it would never end and we knew it. We were all desperately trying to remember from deep in our minds his words; in the first meeting he seemed to have warned everybody, upfront, honestly, about these technologies but nobody could remember what exactly he said. It was eating at them too. Nobody could come up with anything other than pieces, a few things but like a puzzle, we now were determined to remember.

I knew first that many of his words were about a coma. What I thought was funniest was his telling of death, I tried to imagine laying there in my own blood if I would have the divine intervention he did. I had almost lost my hate of him, my blood curdling rage at this one man and now saw him as something more, much more. I knew what he said, that he was like me before, until the voices in his head until this meeting with G-d. Was this the noise in the back of my mind, was this what was breaking through a mystical voice? Eliot said he called out. I called out now. It called back but I could not hear it, I knew it was there, how did Eliot tune in? Would G-d come answer my call, my pleas? I know this sounds mad but with everything we had stolen from Eliot, it rang through that part of the warning that day I took oath with Eliot was that anyone not protecting the inventions would be doing a bad deed by G-d, ominous evil omens would follow. Now perhaps I felt at the time that Eliot was nuts and stealing from G-d did not seem such a threat but now the fear consumed me.

I saw what it meant on a me level, a level already destroying everything I once valued, at the very time that I had everything, I thought, I wanted what I could not have, how cliché but true. Truly, I had everything of Eliot’s and still with all this money and the power of his inventions, I felt valueless, I felt worse. I had everything I dreamed of in law school and yet nothing. Money, I wondered when it would all disappear and become Eliot’s, I was living on borrowed money and time and Eliot did not care a bit about a dollar. We thought Eliot was a spoiled rotten kid at first, his father was loaded, and it was a natural thought at first. On the other hand, he was able to survive with money and without any, we had forced him to penniless repeatedly and it hurt and destroyed his family, again and again but they had love and happiness through every bashing. I could not bear the thought of parting with Eliot’s money and yet it was not buying me anything without misery. Even buying the finest luxuries brought thoughts to my head that negated the purchase value. Imagine thinking that everything you had could be gone in a flash, then repeat that thought from the moment you wake until the moment you sleep and then in your dreams, leaving you petrified, repeat every single day. He was pushing a federal complaint with Justice that alleged and sought protection under RICO and rightfully so, it was winner take all. We had certainly far surpassed the tests to prove his racketeering case. The Legal Conspiracy was so wide and deep, now involved so many people and so many crimes, that we had become a law firm of criminals, not a good lawyer amongst us, a criminal organization. We did not protect law we desecrated it.

Do not get me wrong, proving his case was not between Justice and us, it was between G-d and us. I no longer thought about had I robbed Eliot, I wondered if his words about stealing from G-d were true and meant G-d would be my judge, jury and executioner for the crimes against him. Perhaps this is why he could outsmart thousands of lawyers committed to beating him with every breath, as their Porches were at stake. The more lawyers, judges and politicians that fought Eliot, the more found themselves in the same mental condition as I did. I felt remorse, for I knew that they too could not see at first, those bought in to aid and abet, to cover it up. They did not know about his deals with G-d, nor mine. I never told anyone I had sworn allegiance to Eliot with false intent, I am sure there is a commandment broken there, I knew swearing false oath was one of the big Ten Commandments, I knew that too would have a price. Eliot had not told them at first either, testing their souls, testing to see if they would join in our devilish plan. We just bribed these lackey’s and they sold their degrees for a partnership gain, a lift in pay, a chance to play in the big league. Politicians and judges were beyond easy to either bribe or plant. The playing field was completely uneven and yet he was winning, the more we tried to stop him, the more our problems compounded. Everybody was involved at the firm now; we had to bring them in, as the problems grew bigger. Word at board meetings, or should I call them Eliot meetings, was no longer about how to keep the crime from the partners but now about how to protect the firm from him. Our lawyers were spending almost 85% of their billable hours on Eliot. Everybody in the firm now knew, knew that the partnerships and pay were just a temporary benefit if we lost, if he or any shareholder ever got this into a fair and impartial venue, we knew someday... All this energy against Eliot from partners of Proskauer, Foley & Lardner, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Blakely Sokoloff Zafman & Taylor, Schiffrin & Barroway, Supreme Courts, State Bars and others and yet we were losing. Losing to again what seemed like one man with hosts of friends, friends and more friends, some visible and some apparently invisible. In law, Eliot had the Constitution in his favor and he wielded it, a wicked sword and yet more wicked was his kindness, not just to people but also to animals plants and just about everything good. We would have to try to deny his entire Constitutional rights, deny his rights to claim his inventions and the glories he deserved for changing the world.

His words resounded.

Chapter 21 - Art of War: Who the Fuck is Sun Tzu

Demons, unseen foes, fear, the lack of will, these are the feelings of one losing everything. There were fires burning all around us, fire that shocked the shit out of us and raged to the top. We could not wake up in the morning and attend a meeting where our focus was how to fight off the wave of attacks, he struck consistently at 4:55pm on Friday’s, like clockwork. Occasionally, when we thought Friday had come and gone without assault, a sigh of relief came over us, hoping the pattern had broken. In a bizarre twist of his repetitive behavior, a major assault launched on a Monday morning, wiping away the weekend relief, a surprise attack when we were sleeping. Eliot by Monday morning sent emails [63] to all the Proskauer and Foley partners, warning and threatening us. Effectively from that time until now, even the weekends were shattered waiting to see whether he now struck or not on Friday or Monday, waiting for what we never knew until it was too late. Every time we thought we had Eliot beat or an effective subterfuge created to a complaint, he conquered it and our mess grew larger. Every victory was ten steps backwards. Just a matter of when he would strike, he had the patience of a saint. Saint, Angel are they not the same and Eliot seemed eternal. The timing of the assaults led us first to think Eliot had a fly on the wall, driving us to paranoia against one another and self-paranoia and paranoia in the true sense from the noises in our heads. Who was leaking information to Eliot, how did he know our plans and strike without striking? How to find the mole? Everyone now suspect and everyone mistrusting the other, if there was a mole, was it from Justice or from Eliot’s camp and was anyone in Eliot’s camp, if so, other than a handful of close friends they remain figments. If they could give Eliot information to ruin us, they obviously already knew a lot and Eliot waited until just the right time to Sodom-ize us, usually very publicly.

For example, take “Fat Bastard” Krane, the man charged with getting us off the hook in the complaints against us with the state Supreme Court bar associations and disciplinary bodies in New York. Eliot launched a flurry of bar complaints against the key people in the scam, Krane, Rubenstein and Joao in New York, William Dick in Virginia and my partner Albert Gortz and I in Florida. Krane was President of the New York State Bar Association and was at the top of the disciplinary committees in New York. Krane caught handling the complaints against Proskauer partners while having public office roles with the very Supreme Court of New York agency investigating the complaints, in conflict with his public offices and in violation of law. This was not the appearance of impropriety by Krane, an ethics expert (in debauchery), this was a gluttonous violation of ethics, and it is hard to write that statement for some reason, gluttonous violation of ethics. When Krane was caught, all of our disciplinary complaints we had held off prosecution with Krane’s conflict so well for so long, imploded upon us and everyone involved in the New York complaints, including the Chief Counsel of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Thomas Cahill, was ordered for investigation [64]. Yes, you heard that correctly, ordered by unanimous decision by a panel of Five Justices of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division. Getting out of this would take a miracle to derail and perhaps get us another moment of free air. Choking on free air, our last hours prior to prison for many of us, strangled endlessly, gasping wistfully for a final breath. In fact, Krane, a key department head at the First Department Disciplinary where Eliot filed the complaints against our partners, caught dead in conflict, perhaps the single most conflicted person in the world. He was a former “whipping boy,” clerk, for Judge Judith Kaye the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of New York. Judy was already in our pocket from her husband, Stephen Krane, who we made an intellectual property partner, to buy her devotion. Kaye was in deep now, knowing if caught, she and her husband would lose everything and it was her suggestion that Krane would be the perfect candidate to cover up in New York, with her oversight. The plan was working perfectly, we had derailed the complaints with a group of freshly corrupted and planted people, we now controlled top down the New York courts, this was fucking unbelievable, I mean we were running massive scams now through New York and the courts were in our pocket. Judy was confident she could hold it together, Krane, well one look at that fat fuck and you can see how easy he converted, you could have held out a cheeseburger for him to disregard ethics. Krane was all about revising the language of the state bars to allow criminal activity to be committed by any of Judy’s buddies. When attorneys got in trouble, Krane was the go to guy they bought to keep their law licenses. Judy, being the mastermind of that scheme, we had a tap into every dirty lawyer in New York, it was easy to find ones to aid and abet, even commit our crimes for us, just for the favor of a no look on their crime. Judy had a history with IBM and she was all over the concept of stealing the inventions and gave critical input into how to best beat or cheat the law.

Five to five, one Friday afternoon, the whole world for fat boy and the New York boys ruined as Eliot blasted out a letter to everyone, exposing Krane’s dirty secret. How did he find out? How long had he known? How much did he know? Shit, he sent us a copy and began a barrage of harassing calls to the Chairman and Managing Partner of Proskauer, just toying with them. The letter [65], circulated to about a thousand people was Krane’s death, all the evidence of his corruption, irrefutable evidence of conflict and impropriety. That fat fuck was slowly dripping pounds of fat off, but not as fast as he could replace them stuffing his fat face with super-sized meals.

Off to investigation unless we could railroad the investigation with more of Judy’s friends but it was getting much harder to find allies when everything was out there and people were getting trepid about joining our ranks. Boom, the instant the complaints landed at the NY Supreme Court – Second Department, the moment even more trouble arose, more people enlisted and my conscience, what little remained, weighed heavy. In seconds everyone we planted was exposed, we needed the court clerk, who had no business in the disciplinary but was a longtime dick sucker of Krane and butt boy for Kaye, Pelzer, try to write some nonsense to deflect the investigations. The court ordered an investigation and Pelzer would write a letter trying stating that on “review,” not investigation, the investigations were completed, a word game. The investigator stated no investigation completed, in exchange for review, inapposite the court order, her letter a complete joke,[66] yet all it took was a promise of a partnership with Proskauer. Pelzer’s letter [67] was a last ditch attempt to deny due process coming from a guy with absolutely no authority in the matter, speaking on behalf of another bitch he bent over for, Gail Prudenti, who had her head so far in Kaye’s crotch as to earn the nickname Fishhead. This letter comes with both Prudenti and Kearse having conflicts with both Kaye and Krane, refusing to address their conflicts and continue to operate in complete arrogance of the conflicts. A complete stonewalling of justice against Eliot Bernstein and quite truthfully Bernstein did not order the court ordered investigation, five justices did. Yet, they write to Bernstein why they are failing to uphold the court ordered investigation, for they feared writing to the court their decisions to fail to follow the court order. The fact that a court ordered an immediate investigation, not a review, all further correspondence should have been to the Court that ordered the investigation. Instead, since there were no controls, we just did as we pleased, Judith Kaye could cover anything that floated to the top. If he could not respond to anyone, since we controlled everything, there seemed no reason to worry for the moment. It was progressively getting worse though, people were irate with the exposure with the fact that they had become involved in covering up such large scale corruption, it didn’t matter that they knew now, they were in too deep. Nothing they could do except yield to aid us further, not one of these spineless dickheads had the balls to stand up to the corruption, in fact I think many of them were more than eager to use their colored college degrees to advance in crime. He was just jostling with them, telling them to sign their names into the history books, into the larger federal complaint coming and they all acted as if this charade would last forever. Eventually though they would begin to have fears of him that consumed them too, Krane was no longer a functioning man, he was a Jewish bitch, and as such, he was whining day and night. No longer did he wear an attitude of arrogance to his blubber, he was like a stuck pig, his squealing reverberating under my skin like a festering splinter.

The Florida situation, where I was murdered already at the State Bar, my partner Matthew Triggs, also found violating his Supreme Court of Florida Bar Association rules. Triggs caught representing me during a blackout period explicitly against the rules. Plan B, good ol' boy Jeb Bush in Florida in our pockets, we quickly began a smear campaign on Eliot and figured by the time the bar complaint was over, he too would be.

Then there was Virginia, where Dick was getting dicked, caught perjuring himself in his complaint response and submitting a bogus Intellectual Property Docket, which Eliot sent to the US Patent Office and where none of the information matched up. EXHIBIT DICK RESPONSE AND PATENT OFFICE RESPONSE TO DICK DOCKET.

Chapter 22 - The Angels, Those Who Feared No Evil

Chapter 23 - The Inventors Wife, Stronger Than Mortal Man

Who was this woman? Talk about underestimate, we missed the boat on his wife Candice. She was not an obstacle; in fact, we figured she would be like most of the widows that had survived their husband’s deaths from our schemes. Normally, in the scam, the inventor would not even see us coming and never even know we were the ones that plotted his demise. In the course of destroying their lives, divorce was a common thread that usually came before the murder or suicide. Sometimes we planned to have them both dead in the same accident, this way we could destroy any inheritor rights and an annoying wife. Off the road they would go.

Once we had achieved the theft of the intellectual properties from an inventor, the last thing we wanted was a bitchy wife coming after us. So we would make sure that before the divorce the inventions were already destroyed, the inventor was on his way and the wife normally collapsed in pain, gave up any fight, turned on her husband and wanted him dead too. From riches to rags, most wives gave up their husbands the minute we forced them into solitude. We would drive up the value of the company with debt from our friends, get them all saturated in money and the belief that their patents were going to spin royalties, get them spending the money, before we pulled the capital plug and pulled it all down, the more debt, the better our scheme would go. Then right as they were enjoying life, we would begin a multifaceted destruction of their lives. Starting with forcing them to bankruptcy, loss of their companies, loss of their IP, loss of their love and throw their lives into a world of shit. The unhappiness and strain would drive a few to kill themselves; this always made our job easier.

Oh dear G-d, did we play her wrong, she grew stronger with destitute, she was invincible to pain, her love grew the more they spiraled into hell. This was not normal; we had never seen anything like her. If he was a messenger from G-d, she was an angel sent to help him. The less she had, the happier she became. She had no bonds to money, power, status, or the typical yuppie housewife role. She did not flinch as their lives became more and more embattled; she became a fierce warrior instead. Where other women would have been hammering their husbands for their failures, not seeing that we were the cause, they normally provided the icing on the cake in strain and stress on their inventor husbands. Wives normally walked out the door in the first months after crisis, women these days did not stand by their man often, love tied to tangibles in most marriages. Not her, she grew stronger and she did not lose a drop of love for her love was based on real things, this was not normal of today’s woman. She had no ties to any possessions, she was unafraid of welfare lines, and she had no shame in getting food stamps for her children. Perhaps to spite us she had more children, more problems for our future.

On the other hand was my wife, Deana, who had everything of hers (Candice's) and nothing of her own and where love was dead… sterile. We had moved up since the crime, the technologies were so rich we did not know what to do with the new monies. She knew what was up, she helped me plot and scheme to destroy both of them. In the beginning we banged for the first time in years in what we thought was our time and ecstasy, her dreams had come true and I was feeling the benefits. So close were we to having it all and now so close were we to losing it. Having made it first, worse for her as we lost it, she hated me now with every passing day, since I told her that we were busted. Her world collapsed, the hate within grew, she could have killed them single handedly coming up with so many creative ideas. She would never let go, they would have to pry it from her.

I was listening into a tape on day from the PI, watching them that rocked my world. Eliot was talking to a friend and he said “when these guys get tried, and they will, they are going to prison for the rest of their lives. We will collect their assets through the RICO, so a few billion more from taking out 5-6 law firms with partner assets galore makes it worth the extra time it takes to bring these low life pieces of shit to justice. What I cannot wait for is to take their cars, houses, and wives. I mean Candice and I will ask their wives if they want to stay in their Fifth Ave penthouse, and if so we will ask them to have sex in unusual ways with unusual things and persons of strange sorts on tape. If they agree and sign written legal contracts, we will let them have the house and then send the tapes to their husbands in prison with a TV and VCR to boot. We will brand the video with powered by Iviewit Technologies in the lower right corner. Just kidding but some of those lawyers have some pretty nice wives who have sold out once, should be easy to have them bend over for easy access.” He was daydreaming and I was having nightmares of him making love to my wife and her enjoying it more than with any man. He was not a man and so I could never emulate him, my dick went limp. We had watched them with a Fat Bastard bug up their butts, at first we were bemused and fascinated. In the midst of crisis, these two did not miss a fuck. Sex every day, sometimes two times, sometimes three times, it was unbelievable, porno was not this good. Good for a moment, until you realized that you were no match, never had been, that you were deprived somehow of this greatest joy in life. Deanna’s envy grew and my boner shrank. Shrank so low that Viagra couldn’t get it awake, I could not perform like that even free of stress, under stress it was that my mind was consumed and every time it I tried, the fucking noise in my head became obscene and I was precluded from enjoyment. Sex at a time like this was not possible, yet their lives were a thousand times worse and yet they rose above it and then beyond it and came in orgasm so freely together.

Lewin said his wife, after watching their sexcapades was so depressed she wanted to kill herself. She too hated Candice, what did Candice posses that she did not, she wondered. Why could her husband not perform like Eliot in bed, impotent instead, always watching porn or grabbing at younger women at the club? Her mind to was consumed by Eliot, I almost felt as if he is what she was thinking about, I grew more jealous and envious. What stopped her from reaching climax like Candice, why could she not shoot cum like Candice in the throes of ecstasy, not even for a night in her entire marriage, she was disgusted with the way she was thinking, what too had she become, and she sobbed? Candice was beautiful and all the men knew it, beautiful in entirety. They watched the tapes in fascination and were in awe of her, not her surface beauty, but her soulful, emanating beauty, that cannot be bought, or sold, no practice, all natural. She was everything a man dreamed of, both in her dedication and love of him and her prowess in bed. In bed, she was so free, her fantasies all realities. A world none of us had with our cold marriages, our wives, dead fish to dead men. Even our hookers could not perform anything like Candice. Candice was not dirty, beyond that, it was more like uninhibited, unrestrained, -- pure ecstasy. We had watched hundreds of PI videos taken while doing casework, we had seen people all fucked up on drugs, having kinky wild sex, we thought we had seen it all, we had seen nothing. In fact, she was the cause of my failure to become erect, I would often muse that it was her not him causing the noise in my head, that she was some form of sex demon, demonizing my mind to make me impotent.

With my shriveled dick in hand, Deana would grow more spiteful, she too wanted that pure love and know, after Eliot and Candice, she knew she never had a day in her life of true love. Her problem seemed similar to my own and one night in frustration, she revealed that her lack of lust was due to this growing ringing in her head, there almost constantly, almost like static. The first time she heard the noise in her head was at Jacob Noah Archie Bernstein’s bris, when Eliot cut his son’s penis himself, refusing to say the prayer to allow the Mohel the right to cut. She had never seen a man as proud with child as to do the circumcision, then to find out he had done his other son Joshua Ennio Zander Bernstein’s circumcision too made her romanticize of him in a strange way. To find he had given birth, pulling his own children from the womb made her revel in jealousy and somehow hate of them. Rumors that Eliot had built an Internet Video Teleconference System so that his father, unable to travel, could share the bris of Eliot’s first son Joshua, broadcasting the video of him doing the cut from California, to his father’s house in Florida. His father hosted a party and everyone watched, this was really, before anything like it existed and yet he built since his father and mother’s health was not good at the time. Now here I was watching this crazy man, hating him too, wishing that I had pulled my son or did anything to bond me as he did for his. My kids were so spoiled and rotten that they were never close to anything but money, like father like son. He sent pictures to us daily of his children; we hated them, for they too were too beautiful, fucking vegetarian, blond hair blue-eyed Jewish supermodels.

Deana revered Eliot and at the same time, she plotted to steal from him and his children, later plotting to kill them with us. She hated Candice from the start. I mean who was this bitch, married to this upscale Boca Raton kid, this California girl, with her endless beautiful legs and blond hair. There was no one at the club that knew them, they had just moved from California at the birth of their second son. Rumors swirled about Eliot, mainly from his family but there was not a single word on her, she was quiet but deadly. At first, I did not get a private investigator to dig up dirt on her. Finding her to be too blonde to worry about, too young and too easy to beat, she seemed unremarkable and no threat. Another fatal mistake, when we destroyed Eliot’s life, family, and friends, they simply moved on to her family. He loved her mother, her grandmother, her sister, her cousin and these women all loved him, another shield to our efforts. This was not typical but after we tried to blow them up for their antics in Florida, like dragging my name and my DUI through the state bar, then to the Supreme Court of Florida (Case # SC04-1078 docket) and then to the United States Supreme Court, everyone seemed to be helping him somehow. They had more friends than we counted on, hers were true street fighters, his had ways and means. Combined they bounced off and deflected every attack of ours in mysterious ways. Oh, we hated them with every subtle attack we laid upon them and every one they laid upon us. Their attacks happened before we knew they were coming, helpless to stop it. The only way we were able to delay it was through complete denial of due process and procedure. Hell on his website, there is a picture of me and it has “Whack the Wheezler” picture on it, when you smack it, my Felony DUI pops up. Smack Rubenstein’s picture and his court ordered investigation appears. Smack the “Gluttonous Fat Bastard” Krane and his court ordered investigation for conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety appears. This was the kind of shit that made us desire to kill them more, imagine Krane, former President of the New York Bar and leading figure in the NY Supreme Court disciplinary, destroyed. Labeled “Fat Bastard” and the “King of Gluttony” on the Iviewit homepage. Our rage met with impotence, knowing that touching him would lead to certain charges against us. Certain investigation, paralyzed like deer in the lights. This was no car though; she was a fucking freight train.

We had to move quickly to destroy now her family, to reduce the threat from the inheritors. We would have to begin causing them some legal troubles out in California. That would have to be accomplished very quietly though, in the background before anyone could catch on that events were related. Her mother, Ginger, was getting divorced, we could infiltrate and cause problems with her counsel or get to her husband’s counsel and really mess with her. One of the mother's brothers was in trouble and we could get in and cause problems for him, perhaps get his dime bag dope charge turned into a life sentence on the three strikes laws. Her sister’s boyfriend was border trouble, perhaps we could get a quick charge against him, we would have to start infiltrating the family and keeping everyone from knowing the true source of their pain. We hired another PI firm to get out to California and find dirt on them they did not seem too difficult to destroy. Not only her family and friends would we now have to target but all of his friends were on my list to find dirt on. We had already begun interfering in almost every one of his relationships and had successfully caused problems with many of them, neither of the parties every making the connection with our firm. So we began on her mother first, the divorce was an easy target, we would have to back the other party, already a true pig of a man and then get the attorney to aid and abet our plan, leave her with nothing, desolate and broke. Let us see how well she would be able to support them with nothing.

Chapter 24 - Was Dan Brown Right in the DaVinci Code? Did Jesus Come to Give the Church to Woman and Man Stole it Through Force. Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus aka Constantine I, was an Asshole, Inventions to Help you See the Truth and Change the World.

When looking back at his life one sees that all of his prior writings like the original "Thought Journal" parallel with Jesus’ story. Prophetic divine voices in his head and people doubting such voices could be Eliot or Jesus. Visions of horror for humanity and the ability to put a finger on the cause of the suffering, the oppressive male dominated and out of control society. They both had vision as to what was wrong with society, they had plans to change it, divine plans and feared no evil in attacking the source of the problem, no matter how powerful it appeared to you and I, mere mortals. I am sure that Jesus was ridiculed, laughed at, as he purported ideas as fresh as "turn the other cheek" and “do unto others” at a time people were crucifying each other and feeding them to lions.

Eliot was attempting to tell people that the New World Order just was not working, that he could see the suffering of our children in the near future, suffering from the greed of a few and the complacency of the mass. Eliot had made the claim that the earth was a womb and her children were the animals, plants, all things both animate and inanimate. He wrote a poem in the Dinosaur Story:

Kill the Planet ~ Save the People!
Kill the People ~ Save the Planet!

Mother Earth, in your veins, poisons we have pumped,
Killing the breast that feeds our young.
Your eyes,
Black!
Filled with smog, scum, and soot,
In the name of technology,
Man has forgotten the beauty of ecology.

Fucked humanity,
All creatures that you nurture shamed,
For this crime, MAN, alone to blame.
Will we kill the planet,
For the love of gold and to be elite?
Who will save the people,
When resources precious to life they deplete?

Children,
Ignore Her no longer,
She dies at your feet;
If you fail this greatest of challenges,
It will be your own defeat.

From generations past that loved Her not,
She might as well be dead.
I blame Her not,
If for our deeds,
She kills us for our greed.
Will we desecrate the planet,
For the love of gold and to be elite?
Who will save the people,
When resources precious to life they deplete?

Children,

Rebel!

Revolt!

Against these crimes of Nature.
Once bountiful, Her cup runneth over.

And rape!
And reap!
Was our respect to Her.

Now She and all Her babies die,
Evidence that we were not Her lover.
Will we kill the planet,
For love of gold and to be elite?
Who will save the people,
When resources precious to life they deplete?

VI. Kind Man

I am an animal.
Forgot my name,
Got lost in killing every living thing.
Extincting species by the hour my game,
Will G0D allow me in his fellowship ring?

Soon,
I will inhabit the earth alone,
If I cannot change my horrible throne.
We were called man"kind,” a great misnomer,
For a creature soon to be a loner.

The question now is how to change our stance
To caretaker of the planets creatures,
A noble cause, and a true alliance.
What nobleness would we receive,
Instead protecting and preserving God’s art pieces?

Where to begin?
Kill the industrial revolution!
Let the new rein in.
If we are not able to undo our ways,
Then surely we will be accountable to pay.

In our children’s lives maybe no ozone.
The sun burning their eyes closed.
Will we cuddle them when they have no skin, but bone?

Soon,
We will inhabit the planet alone,
If we cannot change our horrible throne.
We were called man"kind,” a great misnomer,
For a creature soon to be a loner.

When the children hold their heads to the sky,
For a sip of water,
Will you cry,
"Stop children! this is a horrible game,
For surely your eyes will fill with acid and pain.
Never ever, should you play in the rain?
For we forgot to protect the water,
Now it tastes like a fucking sewer."

Or better that,
With a Chernobyl in your home,
When missing this or that, they come only with a groan.
We were called man"kind,”
A great misnomer,
For a creature soon to be a loner.

VII. A Lesson From a Dying King

Petty are the thoughts of mankind in the face of death.
Weary world, wipe your eyes.
See the grander and greater sky.
Center not upon yourself
You are but an integral part.
Entropy,
Your continuous friend in heart.

Answers will never come.
You go through life on instinct.
In your end, you will be known for yours alone.
Accept that you are not the whole,
For that is the fool who has no soul.

Love all equally!
There is no greater or grander thing.

To place yourself on a pedestal so high,
Is to miss the beauty of the skies,
And set yourself apart,
all,
all,
Alone, in the dark.

Blind?
Afraid?
Above the rest?
Cry not that you missed the best.
Destiny, in your control,
Your every action,
A reflection on your soul.

Selflessness the goal, of a truly loving soul.
We only see,
But for a brief bit of our eternity,
The greater and the grander things,
Which with it this strange life does bring.

For past, present and future are of no concern,
For as a part, you see no start.
Fool hearted to linger on the end.

Before your birth,
In this blind state,
Where did you abate?
When you die,
Where will you next rise?
I ask these questions in disguise,
Too not arose fear within your eyes,
But instead,
To fill your head with the magnanimity of your part.

The glories of life surround you for a second,
Or for eternity?
How far backward or forward can you see,
Fixated on this brief moment in your history?
In one swift breath,
Your life here will expire;
Will one more be your desire?
Or are you content with your lives fire,
Knowing you will forever go higher?

Not frightened of what lies ahead,
Anticipating the wonders of what is now living
And will soon be considered dead.
For you will always be a part,
Of this God's grandest piece of art,
No matter what kind of heart.

But will your soul be filled with the joys,
Of the greater and the grander things,
With which it this strange life does bring?

In orbit all around,
Life's greatest pleasures abound.
Wake to see the morning light,
In a truly selfless plight.

Weary world,
Open your eyes,
And see the changes necessary for life to survive.

Children rise!

Rebellion and revolution must save the skies;
Our self-indulgences are killing us so.
In the race to be civilized,
Mankind has lost chivalry.

Blinded in fright, greed, and insecurity,
Man will never see salvations light,
If the children do not rise up to fight.
Taught from birth to accept their plight;
Evil thoughts and actions will soon look right.

Taught raise not objection.
The child grows in complete deception.
Poor Mother Earth must surely be in hell,
To deliver from Her womb man,
The destructive force that delves to kill Her next born.

To see Her children divided against one another,
Man killing and beating Her lovin' creatures.
No respect for Her wombly nurture,
No life may have a future!

Time has played against Mother Nature.
Will She again be able to nurture?
Maybe it is our time to nurture Her,
From Sea to shining Sea.
Rebuild Her womb,
The atmospheric and environmental sea.
With no time in the looking glass,
Abuses must change fast.

Solutions are easy.

Change seems impossible.

With the answers clear,
What can MANkind truly fear?
Possibly the loss of his wars, creed, and greed,
All sick and wrong claims of his victory.
For humanities most prized possessions,
Seem more the devil's obsessions.

And children behold these problems of old;
To forget the problems only makes them grow.
It is on your heads to make a stance,
For your own and all creatures’ futures chance.
From this gross scene of our ancestors past,
You are responsible to bring it back to beauty at last!
Do not bow in despair,
All is not yet lost.
Conquer these fears.
Or you will pay the cost!

It was killing me to read these lines from his diary, written after his coma, I remember after reading it the first time that I felt a cold chill of the evil I had become. I hated more for the fact that he seemed to blame man and he identified with woman as the savior of the planet or the defeat of their own children. Then I read the DaVinci Code and I almost fell off my chair, as I realized that his words seemed identical to Jesus, he was promoting a New World Order where woman took back the planet in fear of their children being killed from this male dominated, ego-psychotic male testosterone driven world we lived in. He believed that man had stolen the planet in his delusion to become king of the planet and in order to do so unobstructed he reduced woman to less than dog. Depriving the bearer of children the right to be involved in any part of societal direction in a male egotistical power grab for world power without even the women of their kind. If woman did not cooperate with their man, they were beaten and further oppressed into submission. Pure brute force was manunkinds way. Eliot saw that the only way the planet and Her creatures could be saved was by mothers teaching their male children to have respect like a woman, for the planet first, treating it as the embryo of their existence. Since man has no embryonic link to life other than for a brief second, it was impossible for them to understand the need for nurture and therefore they could not place in a hierological order the order for life as number one priority. Manunkind ordered the world without any consideration for Nature’s womb. Megalomaniacal ways brought the world to the sorry state it was in today, polluted and corrupted by greed. Manunkind chasing all the wrong things to accumulate power and wealth, leaving a world with massive ozone holes, water pollution, air pollution, deforestation, etc., bringing the children close to a world lacking essential resources for life. Only man, with no care for life, life even of the children could have directed humanity in this spiral to hell. No woman would have jeopardized the resources precious to all life for things like power or gold, woman see the only precious resource as being their children first and other things second. Man sees only other things first, like power and money, and thus life does not even enter the equation, hence the world we live in.

Could the technologies somehow link to the greater purpose Eliot spoke of when we met? One could conclude that the technologies were actually like the Holy Grail and they were attracting evil across the planet like a magnet, the same evil that fails to protect the children. Attracting every dirty lawyer, judge, and politician, all willingly entangled, once in they were certain to go down with the rest of us. Perhaps the technologies were a trick by G0d that would test the male establishment and their love of their children. Certainly if this were the case, I was doomed. I caused the stealing and coveting of G0d's technologies, a Pedophile who attempted to take advantage of this angel child of G0d. A Pedophile against G0d’s child, I tried to steal gifts from G0d to help the children, the noise in my head was starting to cause physical pain in my skull. Was I being tested? Was the whole male establishment who now tried to block Eliot in his legal efforts to get back the technologies and prosecute the evilness of men like me now coming to trial inside my head and almost certainly, sooner than later in an actual court of law. Even denying him legal rights took enormous efforts from those at the top, thus those at the top were now involved, it was like a fingerprinting of corruption was underway and Eliot was the catalyst, the technologies like a drug that he used to seduce us. I know this is farfetched, I know you may never understand having not been personally involved with these matters yet, but when living through it, you are consumed with it. Everyone who now was involved was up to their asses in it and nobody could explain how this whole affair had gotten so out of control. Could this be as he stated a test of G0d, a test that would show a G0d how distant from G0d we had become in our society, how we could ignore his messengers, ignore his gifts and a test of our worthiness to continue to inhabit the earth. Was G0d disgusted with me and everyone involved, did any of us even believe anymore in such G0d, certainly what we had done to Eliot would be judged harshly but what if we had interfered in technology that was delivered to help our children and we fucked up? How could this hurt my children? I could see so much harm already and I do not think the harm I was focused on was the harm that was coming but it certainly exposed that something greater was occurring all around me.

Chapter 25 - Dead Inventor, The Failed Murder Attempt

We were beat and in our desperation, for it made no sense, we conspired to kill him. Kill him before he got to the United States Supreme Court. We would step up the heat on him, he was catching on to the entire scheme, it was so complicated that after two years he still did not see the whole of the scam. Fascinating, so many demented ideas filled our minds, endless possibilities for evil once you were committed. In fact, the mold [68] in his apartment was the first attempt, it was a lucky coincidence but when he had finally come back from California, after fleeing for his life, after Utley went and threatened him when caught with the second set of patents, he moved into a life threatening mold situation in his home in Florida. In fact, that almost ended up in a cluster fuck for us too, as when he went to court, we interceded with his counsel, a little payola to deny him any rights in that court, but this little scheme almost killed his baby son, Daniel. Messy getting messier things were escalating and we damn near murdered a baby, I felt a strange rush of evil course my body. Sitting in my car, drunk, another man helpless in his own, I could not move, paralyzed by a plethora of imagery running through my head.

You must first understand that much earlier in 2001, we sent Utley to threaten him to shut up or else. As we thought Utley’s threat on behalf of our law firm and Foley for him to watch his back and his family, evidence began flying everywhere. Instantly, we started a shredding party of his documents, we started to plan for the end of the Inventors but he was too swift. Overnight, after Utley made the death threat, he called his wife, had her pack up their kids, and moved them to California, in an instant, overnight, and gone. It was like having someone in your sites and then boom, gone before you could pull off a round, gone. You would never believe where they ended up. They fled to a hotel, The St. Regis, where a friend harbored them in the Vice Presidential Suite for weeks at $50 a night, we wondered who his travel agent was, and it was a friend of his wife, a Mollie DeKold. From the St. Regis they then went to Vegas, to another $50 a night set of suites at the Luxor. Checking into hotels with their limited belongings, another great hotel deal from yet another friend, a one Andy and Donna Dietz, pesky Shareholders I despised all along, owners of a travel agency to the best rock stars, Donna, iconic. These Dietz fuckers were harboring the whole family in a hotel while he had time to further plot and scheme against us, attacks that would forever scar us, doom us but we could not stop there. These friends of his came from everywhere, there were people we never saw on any reports, his friends had friends, and we would never recover from the sheer number of people who had the evidence against us and the knowledge that we stole his shit.

We would shatter Eliot’s life, using every resource in our and Foley's firms to annihilate him. Eliot had left with his family his home and office belongings, not to return to Florida until after discovering our court case against our bogus companies, a whole other story of how we were trying to steal the technologies. Since we had moved Eliot into offices directly across the hall Proskauer’s Boca Raton, FL office, we could keep real close to him and it was much easier to bug the offices that way. Who would have thought that Eliot could have been bugging us all along, who thought that he might have known long before he let on what exactly we were doing and played us, I mean is playing us perfectly. A fucking actor he would have had to been and it seems more likely that he is divine versus genius. It did not matter now how or why, we were outwitted, busted, and Eliot had to be murdered. We were going to do it when Eliot came home to his family after Utley threatened him, figuring he would have been too scared to tell anyone but that plan blew up in our face. Utley's threat was too late and Eliot acted faster than anyone could have anticipated and set up in California where we had limited access to him and hid and dodged and hid. We discovered later, Eliot already called and notified the FBI in CA and the Rancho Palos Verdes police of Utley’s death threats and that we were the likely suspects if he turned up murdered. Eliot contacted the patent office next and started contacting various people trying to get answers. Thank g0d Foley lawyers planted inside the USPTO caught wind of Eliot’s efforts first. Right as damage control on one complaint, Eliot started filing complaints with everyone and their mother. Eliot contacted the patent office and claimed we were trying to kill him, they suggested he file a complaint but we had the info at his office in Florida and that is when we started to shred the evidence in high gear. Arthur Andersen was on to us, we were so close to a technology transfer with our friends at Enron, the whole Blockbuster/Enron (Huizenga's idea) deal to be the controllers of digital video and imaging, monopolizing his inventions as our own, now scraped. Talk about a fucking nightmare. My head was splitting and I started drinking more. Seconds away from pulling this Enron Broadband scam off, we had already started accounting for it on Enron's books, illegally of course and it was all going so smoothly. We had a few hurdles left to the finish line but now, right as we could taste the fruits of a perfect swindle, it was unwinding fast. The evidence would have to be destroyed but did Eliot have any backups or copies, we just assumed that Eliot did not care and had nothing at his office in California. Arthur Andersen had to go, they were on to us and had found one of the dummy corporations we set up, where some of the stolen patents in Utley's name resided, and they were sniffing up my ass for info. Nobody had completely discovered the whole scam but they had the coat tails. We had to dissolve Enron, ridding the evidence of an Enron Broadband technology division we started based on having stolen Eliot’s intellectual properties. Problem, the Broadband division had already booked massive revenue based on the presumption that the technologies were in the bag. This would take a major cover up, since continuing transferring the patents to Enron would have been a disaster, so we abandoned ship on other ideas and again began shredding. Nobody would wonder why Enron, an energy company, suddenly jumped into the virtually unheard of Internet broadband video market or why the revenue projections were hundreds of millions overdone, I prayed.

The partners at the firm began meeting incessantly about Eliot, our entire law firm was working time and overtime on only this and we had no other billings that mattered, everyone was at risk if Eliot crossed the finish line at any point in the next twenty to thirty years. If caught every partner in all the law firms involved would lose every single asset they and the partnership had, I mean every single thing and so these attorneys worked from every angle on how to bring Eliot down, to make his life hell before he could find out and get this any messier. How to diffuse all these situations unfolding, how to make Eliot’s life so miserable that he had no time to talk to the authorities was the focus, we believed that if we stopped Eliot nobody would ever know our dirty little secrets. This would give us time to head off any complaints, to destroy the evidence, to plant people where necessary, further derailing any efforts to expose us. Thank G0d we had a plan to buy the Presidency if necessary and it was looking like with the Enron scandal and Cheney and Bush’s involvement there too, we might have to siege the Presidency to hold all these scandals off. The rumor mill was abuzz with talk that Grebe was capable of pulling an election fraud, which many debated as the only way to stay alive, if even for a bit longer but we had to have someone in at the very top. We had to have someone so greed oriented somebody, already in the cabal, with nothing to lose. George W. Bush II was the answer in the end. Cheney was already deeply involved in Iviewit through Lynne's involvement at Lockheed. I took them to Lockheed, that was my ingenious move with Real 3D, the Cheney’s were the dirtiest politicians and always on the political losing ticket, a scandal wherever they went. Just ask Nixon or any other candidates whose candidacy he ruined. Talk about an idiot, getting Bush elected would take election fraud, as the People could not be stupid enough to buy into his ignorance alone. Many debated if Bush’s true idiocy and past, marred in homosexuality, cocaine, drugs and failed businesses, would destroy any chance but rumor was it would not matter. We would back Bush into power, imagine a Democratic law firm backing a Republican candidate. Bush did however have the connections to the Skull and Bones group too and with those connections and a few bumbling idiots to surround him we could stop any attempt at due process or justice. The Supreme Courts already stacked both state and federal from years of planning prior by the Bonesman and, since Regan, many Bonesman had been inducted and their friends, we could still make this work.

Right in the middle of our shredding party, we were stunned when a group of people showed up at the Boca Raton office with moving trucks. They came up to the office and started pulling everything out of the office right beneath our noses. Utley tried to stop them, stating he was President of the company but they said they had Eliot's authority to pull everything from the office, including his desk and chair. The y marched to the computer lab, grabbing every machine, before we could figure out how to run things or erase all the data. So Utley started to steal equipment, this later became another mess with the Boca Raton PD [69]

and

Boca Raton PD 2 [70] we would have to solve. One of the employees actually wrote a statement of how we tried to bribe him with stolen funds from the company and it was damning, letter Frenden[71]. Even with all of these events exploding, we continued in our greed. We had him on the run it seemed, everyone was convinced we could get rid of the evidence and him still. Yet, with the equipment gone and the records gone, we had shredded quite a bit, there was a lot evidence now floating somewhere in space. His former employer, Rock It Cargo, USA, commissioned to come take the entire Florida office to California and now things were getting worse by the minute, the documents taken too. Our partners lamented over what they got away with but again we convinced ourselves that there was not enough belief that we had committed the crimes at this point and that no one would be able to put it together before we obliterated him, his wife, children and the other inventors. It was only a few weeks before that Utley had found a video-conference server plugged into the conference room with active cameras all over the office, could he have been taping us, how could we have missed it? We shut it down immediately and removed Eliot from his domain, in fact, we stole the domain Iviewit.com and shut them all out until we could figure it out but later much of that info somehow resurfaced.

We would now have to track and hunt him in LA and then get back into his life there with some more plants, surround him with fresh faces that would get the company info back to us. What we learned was that the data and docs had been flown to LA and then delivered to a new house he was in, in Palos Verdes, CA, this little fucker was quick, again so many friends, who were these Rock It fucks, this David Bernstein, Andy and Donna Dietz and Barry Becker. Before we could even get around him to stop any flow of data to third parties, complaints had started that needed immediate quashing. At the board meeting, my inside man Utley, terminated for cause. The Board of Directors voting to move the companies to California, close our Boca Raton office, and shut us out, including all of the people we planted around Eliot. This was getting complicated by the minute. With the Feds notified and others, killing him would have to wait and in that time he would do tremendous damage to our plans but fucking Grebe, Mr. Nam was supposed to bail us out with some yet unrevealed fail safe plan that was have this bottled up by 03, I could wait that long. Come on, we almost had him dead minutes before, we were seconds from victory and now it seemed we were fighting for our lives. A fight I still feel today we are losing. This fuck Eliot already surrounded himself with his old California friends and we had not prepared for this, we had made all of our plans for things like killing him in Florida or a set up in New York.

Foley and Larder were involved from the start, operating in the background, with me and Utley's buddy William Dick, IBM's former far east patent counsel and now at Foley, yet we had to bring them out when Eliot caught on to the fact that Joao was not doing his patent work as intended [72]. Funny, when Eliot discovered Joao was scamming he came to me with the disclosure. How foolish and trusting was he, in coming to me regarding Joao, the patent attorney we planted to file bad patents? To calm Eliot, I told him to keep it quiet, not to scare the investors. Claiming Proskauer would begin investigating why patents seemed filed late, why inventors were missing from the applications, why the applications not assigned [73] as promised, why Joao might have patents in his own name that might be overlapping the Iviewit patents and that appeared recently filed. I guess I did not think I could be being played by Eliot, that this was part of "keep your enemies closer" that I somehow overlooked. I was not prepared for this kind of war and he was living for it. Eliot came to me all concerned, as if he had just discovered a few pieces of the Joao scam and wanted Proskauer to investigate. Can you believe it, Eliot wanted us to investigate our own weasel, and this would be too easy, I mean he acted as if conflict was not even an issue. I mean this now caused us to reveal the main patent thief, William Dick of Foley, who would have to come out of the woodwork to replace Joao, I would support that Joao be let go, even though we brought him in and were wholly responsible for his actions. The storyline would be that Joao had done the initial filings quickly and with errors but that, Foley & Lardner would takeover and file from the provisional patent applications to the non-provisional patent pending applications and clean up any errors, correct the inventors and assignees, etc. Dick was already deeply involved in writing the second set of patents for Proskauer behind the scenes. Utley, Dick, and I worked together before at Diamond Turf and pulled out of that one unscathed, this would be simple to diffuse the Joao mess. We would have to bring Dick in gingerly and fail to disclose to Iviewit what had happened at Diamond Turf [74] and that Dick was the attorney who filed the stolen patents [75] for the lawn mower inventions we were stealing from Friedkin.

Chapter 26 - Can’t Change History

Chapter 27 - The Whole Enchilada

Chapter 28 - My Time has Come, the Meaning of the Fucking Ringing in Me’s Head

Chapter 28 – Year 2010 Update, I pray the Mayans were Correct and 2012 is the End of my Existence, I can take no More

Canto 1 - The Heat in Hell

Canto II – Anderson

Canto III - The Judge

Canto IV The Judiciary Committee Hearing

Canto V The Related Cases

Cases @ New York Second Circuit

· 08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT

· Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

· Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

· McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

Legally “Related” Cases to Anderson @ US District Court - Southern District NY

· 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al.

WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT which other cases have been marked legally “related” to by Fed. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin

· 07cv11196 Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

· 07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

· 08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

· 08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

· 08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.

· 08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al.

· 08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.

· 08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.

· 14. 08 cv 6368 John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York, and,

· 06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al.

Canto VI ~ Busted in Ponzi Schemes including Madoff, Stanford, Drier, Greenberg Traurig and more

Canto VI ~ Freeze, Your Under Arrest, the Motion to Compel

08-4873-CV

United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit

Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Plaintiff – Appellant

--v--

Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee et al.

Defendants – Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CASE 07 Civ. 11196 (SAS)

Related Case

(07 Civ. 9599) (SAS-AJP) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al.

Cases seeking or related to anderson

(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.

(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al.

(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.

(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.

EMERGENCY Motion to compel

HALT PROCEEDING PENDING CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND OVERSIGHT. REMOVE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN THIS COURT THROUGH CESSATION OF VIOLATIONS OF JUDICIAL CANNONS, ATTORNEY CONDUCT CODES, PUBLIC OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND LAW.
RESTORE ORDER TO THIS COURT!

ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN, PRO SE
2753 N.W. 34^TH STREET

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33434-3459

(561) 245.8588 (o) / (561) 886.7628 (c) / (561) 245-8644 (f)

iviewit@iviewit.tv / www.iviewit.tv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – EMERGENCY MOTION TO COMPEL

TOC \o "1-2" \h \z \u Declaration of inventor eliot ivan bernstein.. PAGEREF _Toc239154289 \h 4

Scheindlin Finds “SYSTEMIC” Public OFFICE Corruption in the LEGALLY RELATED “WHISTLEBLOWER” Lawsuit slated for trial.. PAGEREF _Toc239154290 \h 9

Judge Winter’s Denial of Stay to join u.s. government officials ACTS AS title 18 obstruction PAGEREF _Toc239154291 \h 14

Scheindlin’s Flawed Dismissal & Failure to Remove & REPORT MISCONDUCT & CONFLICT. this court’s failure to resolve conflicts as Cause for Title 18 Obstruction Charges. PAGEREF _Toc239154292 \h 17

Relation of DEFENDANTS to Ponzi Schemes OF MADOFF, Stanford, dreier, okun & the markit group holding antitrust INVESTIGATION.. PAGEREF _Toc239154293 \h 23

Defendants Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer’s DIRECT involvement in the Stanford, Madoff, Dreier & Okun Financial Frauds. PAGEREF _Toc239154294 \h 27

defendant client frauds. PAGEREF _Toc239154295 \h 37

enron / arthur andersen scandal ties to defendants in these matters. PAGEREF _Toc239154296 \h 42

Examples of Un-resolved Conflicts of interest that act to obstruct Justice through continued Violations of judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes, public office rules & Regulations and law... PAGEREF _Toc239154297 \h 48

Defendants Proskauer & First Dept Conflicts. PAGEREF _Toc239154298 \h 48

Defendants Meltzer, Joao and Dreier Conflicts. PAGEREF _Toc239154299 \h 56

Defendant Foley’s Conflicts and the Virginia Attorney General Conflicts with Foley that Conflict the Virginia Attorney General from further Representation of Defendants. PAGEREF _Toc239154300 \h 59

Former IP Counsel to Plaintiff Greenberg Traurig Conflict Representing Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court.. PAGEREF _Toc239154301 \h 64

Defendant New York Attorney General Conflicts Create Obstruction of Justice and Conflict discovered with Defendant NYAG being Represented by Defendant Proskauer.. PAGEREF _Toc239154302 \h 66

This Court & USDC Conflicts Acting to Deny Plaintiff Due Process through Obstruction of Justice PAGEREF _Toc239154303 \h 71

Violations of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law... PAGEREF _Toc239154304 \h 76

Violations of US Code Title 18. PAGEREF _Toc239154305 \h 85

Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes citing New York Attorney Conduct Codes PAGEREF _Toc239154306 \h 94

New York First Department Rules. PAGEREF _Toc239154307 \h 104

New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility.. PAGEREF _Toc239154308 \h 105

TO BE FILED COMPLAINTS. PAGEREF _Toc239154309 \h 123

PRIOR FIRST DEPT COMPLAINTS NOT RESOLVED BY DUE PROCESS AND MIRED IN CONFLICT AND FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS. PAGEREF _Toc239154310 \h 130

REMOVAL OF quasi Plaintiff P. STEPHEN LAMONT from these proceedings and all related matters and reporting his actions before this court and more to the proper authorities PAGEREF _Toc239154311 \h 135

Oversight Sought TO REVIEW THE VIOLATIONS OF THIS COURT PERTAINING TO VIOLATIONS OF Judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes, public office rules & Regulations and law... PAGEREF _Toc239154312 \h 139

Halt Case Pending Oversight Review... PAGEREF _Toc239154313 \h 147

CITIZEN’s ARREST – FREEZE & SURRENDER TO AUTHORITIES. PAGEREF _Toc239154314 \h 150

PRAYER FOR RELIEF.. PAGEREF _Toc239154315 \h 152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. PAGEREF _Toc239154316 \h 162

Declaration of inventor eliot ivan bernstein

As this Court is aware, a formal Motion to address multiple Conflict(s) of Interest ( COI ) in Violation of Judicial Cannons ( JC ), Attorney Conduct Codes ( ACC ), Public Office Rules & Regulations ( PORR ) and Law within this Lawsuit and the prior courts, was filed by myself, Eliot Ivan Bernstein ( Appellant or Plaintiff ), on Jan. 31, 2009[1]. The Motion referred to the Panel hearing the Appeal on Feb. 18, 2009[2]. Yet, multiple levels of COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law prevail in this Court, creating Obstruction of Justice and are continuing Illegal acts that are Prejudicial to Plaintiff’s Due Process rights.

The Conflicts now include the conduct of United State Court of Appeals Second Circuit ( USCA ) Judge, the Honorable Ralph K. Winter, Jr. ( Winter ), in denying a prior Motion for an Extension of Time and Stay pending formal appearance and involvement by the Office of the United States Attorney General ( USAG ) and involvement of the “United States” as Petitioned by Plaintiff[3]. Denial by Judge Winter coming after United States District Court Southern District of New York ( USDC ) Judge, the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin ( Scheindlin ), Sua Sponte without notice dismissed my Lawsuit and six other Lawsuits. Lawsuits which Scheindlin previously marked "Legally Related" to the “Whistleblower” Federal Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson, 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York ( Anderson ), incorporated in entirety by reference herein. In the Dismissal Order[4] of August 8, 2008 of the “Legally Related” Lawsuits, Scheindlin suggests the “Legally Related” Lawsuits seek intervention by the Supreme Court of the United States, the appropriate USAG and the New York Attorney General ( NYAG ) stating:

As discussed below, the United States Constitution does not permit this Court to supervise the departmental disciplinary committees or review the decisions of the courts of New York State. Regardless of the possibility of corruption in the courts of the State of New York, the only federal court that may review their decisions is the United States Supreme Court[5]. Plaintiffs must direct their complaints to the state court system, the Attorney General for the State of New York, or the appropriate United States Attorney. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the decisions of the departmental disciplinary committees, and for the other reasons stated below, these actions are dismissed. [ORDER August 08, 2008]

Plaintiff reminds this Court of the logical inconsistencies in the Scheindlin Dismissal Order as set out in prior motions and Appellant’s Brief to this Court on Appeal, in Scheindlin’s simultaneously recommending action to an appropriate USAG and the NYAG while finding that the USDC has no jurisdiction and that Plaintiff cannot state claims upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff agrees that action by the appropriate Non-Conflicted USAG and Non-Conflicted NYAG is proper but disputes the Scheindlin finding that the USDC has no jurisdiction to grant relief. Plaintiff further disputes the finding that no claims warrant relief by a federal court as the underlying Intellectual Property rights, anti-trust actions, anti-competitive schemes, and ongoing RICO conspiracy and claims of Fraud on US Government Agencies and Foreign Nations all involve federal questions sufficient for original federal jurisdiction by the United States District Court.

Plaintiff hereby now renews and reargues the prior Motions submitted to this Court and the USDC regarding COI[6] through this Motion to Compel. Plaintiff seeks to compel this Court to address and remove the COI’s and all existing Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, IMMEDIATELY AND PRIOR to further Adjudication on Appeal as required by LAW, prior to any other substantive rulings or decisions. The continuing failure to remove such conflicts not only acts as further Obstruction of Justice and due process violations but also impermissibly violates Plaintiff’s due process rights under Civil Settlement programs and policies of the US Courts.

Plaintiff now requests a Stay of Proceedings on Appeal, until official involvement on behalf of the United States by the appropriate USAG, the NYAG, the Supreme Court and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) can intervene. Intervention is sought not only to join the Lawsuit on behalf of the US Government’s interests but also additionally to review the actions of this Court and the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials representing Defendants to address Criminal activities and/or determine if same are taking place in these Proceedings through Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law. The COI now includes this Court’s own Violations of JC, ACC and Law, which would preclude further rulings, decisions or any other action by this Court until all COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law are removed. If necessary, Conflict resolution requested herein may force certain of this Court’s Justices and Court Personnel recusals and possible transfer of the Proceedings to a Non-Conflicted court. Also, prior Motions Decided and Rulings issued by this Court and the USDC issued based on Pleadings submitted in COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law would need to be vacated and those responsible for the Fraud on the Court Criminally Charged and proceedings returned to proper procedural status pre-Dismissal.

At the time of the filing of the prior Motion for Extension and this Court’s decision to deny a stay pending official appearance by the DOJ, the United States had recently underwent a change in Administration with incoming President, Barack Hussein Obama II, sworn into office in January of 2009, only one month prior. At the time of the prior Motion for Extension, the new Administration had appointed no Solicitor General. Subsequently, on March 19, 2009, The Honorable Elena Kagan appointed as Solicitor General within the DOJ and this Court should Stay matters on Appeal pending her involvement and/or the involvement of the Office of Solicitor General on behalf of the United States. This Court should further undertake its Legal Obligation to seek involvement of the US Solicitor General and all other appropriate State, Federal and International Authorities, including those mentioned herein, on its own motion.

This Court is fully aware that it has Legal and Ethical Duties and Obligations under Law to address and/or negate and report all COI, all Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law and further notify all State, Federal, Disciplinary and other Appropriate Authorities of the Violations. The Court has Legal Obligation to negate COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, PRIOR to adjudicating matters. Plaintiff has formally Petitioned the Court to perform its Legal and Ethical Duties and Obligations regarding Conflict Disclosure and this Court has failed Disclosure despite repeated formal and procedural Conflict Disclosure requests by Pro Se Counsel Bernstein, continuing to act in Violation of its Rules, JC, ACC, PORR and Law. For this Court to fail these Legal Obligations to follow the Court’s own Rules, is to allow the COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, to create a virtually impenetrable Obstruction of Justice through Conflict. Obstruction achieved by Conflict which becomes part of a FRAUD ON THE COURT[7] by those in charge of the Court, acting to further deny Plaintiff Due Process rights and further Aiding and Abetting the very real Legal RICO Conspiracy Crimes Alleged by Plaintiff before this Court.

Scheindlin Finds “SYSTEMIC” Public OFFICE Corruption in the “LEGALLY RELATED” WHISTLEBLOWER Lawsuit slated for trial

In the April 27, 2009 Decision and Order[8] by Scheindlin, in the “Legally Related” Lawsuit of Anderson, Scheindlin formally judicially declared the validity of the Anderson Lawsuit as a “WHISTLEBLOWER”. Scheindlin advancing the case on allegations of “Systemic” Public Office Corruption within the New York Supreme Court involving agencies directly implicated in Plaintiff-Appellant’s case herein and directly involving the conduct of several major law firms named as Defendants herein. Public Office Corruption at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (First Dept) and the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department ~ Departmental Disciplinary Committee ( DDC ) is center stage in Judge Scheindlin’s Decision advancing the Anderson Lawsuit to Trial. The First Dept and First Dept DDC are among the various offices where disciplinary complaints in Plaintiff’s matters were filed involving the Defendant Law Firms Proskauer, Meltzer, Foley and Others, all directly at issue in this Lawsuit and many Self-Representing themselves in further Violations of ACC, PORR and Law before this Court. Note that the original complaint[9] filed in the Anderson Lawsuit expressly raised the Iviewit matters as relating to the “Systemic” Public Office Corruption that was ongoing in the First Dept and First Dept DDC. The flawed USDC Dismissal Order in this Lawsuit occurred prior to the recent finding of “Systemic” Public Office Corruption in Anderson and wrongfully stated that Plaintiff Bernstein had not stated claims upon which federal relief are available while such Dismissal improperly denied Plaintiff Discovery, Due Process and evidentiary related rights to the Anderson evidence and information.

Due to the continued Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law acting to Obstruct Justice, as corroborated by Anderson, and, the continued and affirmed COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law continuing in this Court, Plaintiff now demands this Court to issue Orders for IMMEDIATE enforcement of COI Rules, JC, ACC, PORR and Law and resolution of conflicts. Such Court Order shall mandate FULL CONFLICT DISCLOSURE applicable to all Court Justices, Court Personnel, Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials that represent this Lawsuit on behalf of the Court and Counsel for Defendants and forcing compliance with all JC, ACC, PORR and Law. The minute there was correlation to Anderson’s allegations with Plaintiff’s allegations, it is almost impossible to imagine that the Court and USDC did not mandate thorough Conflict Checks of everyone involved in representing the Lawsuit in any Legal Capacity. Yet, even after repeated requests by Plaintiff to this Court and the USDC, these pleas for a Conflict free forum, went wholly ignored.

In the wake of Anderson’s supporting claims of “Systemic” Public Office Corruption for “FAVORED” Lawyers and Law Firms, Aided and Abetted by New York Supreme Court Officials and Disciplinary Agencies by Public Office Lawyers and others, there is now Absolute Evidence of the corruption. Evidence from an insider, as Anderson was a Staff Attorney for the First Department Discipline Committee for six years. Evidence of Obstruction by Anderson necessitates the need IMMEDIATELY to protect against further corruption within the Courts, preventing further crimes from being committed on behalf of the Favored Law Firms and Lawyers in the courts and reducing the number of new defendants. Allegations of Obstruction in Plaintiff’s complaints, prior to Plaintiff learning of Anderson, are almost identical to the Criminal Obstruction exposed by Anderson and act as further cause to Reinvestigate all prior Lawsuits and Disciplinary Complaints filed by Plaintiff in the New York Courts and Disciplinary Departments. Anyone involved in Plaintiff’s prior Disciplinary Complaints at the First Dept and First Dept DDC would be CONFLICTED from acting in any Legal Capacity in these Proceedings, for example Defendants Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer. Several Public Officials named in Anderson’s complaint are simultaneously Defendants and Witnesses in Plaintiff’s Lawsuit. For example, Defendant Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe (Wolfe), former clerk of the court for Defendant First Dept and now Clerk of this Court, named in Anderson and this Lawsuit as a Defendant making Wolfe’s direct involvement in the handling of these matters for this Court CONFLICTED.

Wolfe, an initial Defendant in Anderson, will now be a Witness for Anderson and simultaneously a Witness and Defendant in this Lawsuit, creating a massive CONFLICT with her involvement as Clerk of this Court and therefore this Court. Until this Court and Wolfe’s Conflicts are resolved through full Disclosure leading to either Conflict resolution and/or Conflict removal, the Conflict acts to Obstruct Justice in this Court, causing new Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, denying Due Process rights of Plaintiff and cause for Criminal Obstructions charges. Wolfe’s deposition statements are cited on multiple occasions in Scheindlin’s Opinion and Order denying Summary Judgment in the Anderson Lawsuit, dated April 27 2009, whereby Scheindlin[10] stated, “Plaintiff’s [ Anderson’s ] First Amendment Retaliation Claims remain”, “Retaliation” while Anderson should have been protected as a “Whistleblower”.

Anderson testified recently before the New York Senate Judiciary Committee on June 08, 2009[11], in Albany New York and her testimony describes multiple acts of State and Federal Crimes, including Fraud on the Courts through Obstruction of Justice caused by State Officials violating ACC, PORR and Law. As Anderson describes, Court and Public Office Officials achieved Obstruction through Coercion, Threats and Intimidation to attempt to force her to Whitewash complaints against Favored Law Firms and Lawyers. From Anderson’s riveting testimony at the hearings, she claims,

I alleged that upon learning of the DDC's pattern and practice of whitewashing and routinely dismissing complaints leveled against certain select attorneys -- to the detriment of the public that the DDC is duty-bound to serve – I reported this wrongdoing pursuant to my rights under the First Amendment to the United States constitution and, importantly, my own ethical obligations under the New York State Code of Professional Responsibility…

In response, however, rather than attempting to address and rectify the problem, my supervisors embarked upon a campaign of abuse and harassment of myself, including a physical assault on myself…[12]

This intimidation of Anderson by Public Office Officials was to preclude her from exposing the ongoing Corruption at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department and First Department Disciplinary Committee, Corruption that included document destruction, changes to staff attorney reports, physical assault and wrongful termination for her attempts to expose the Crimes of her superiors, including Cahill.

Plaintiff Bernstein was slated to testify at the New York Senate Judiciary Committee hearings with Anderson, when suddenly, in the midst of the hearings, the now infamous Albany Coup on the NY Senate occurred on June 08, 2009. The Albany Coup took place approximately 10 minutes before Plaintiff was to testify about the enormous “Systemic” Public Office Corruption alleged herein and in the Amended Complaint in support of Anderson’s testimony. The Albany Coup then forced the shut down of the lights in the building, the cell and Internet communications, and finally, after waiting two hours, cancellation of the hearings. There are several theories as to orchestration and timing of the Albany Coup. One such theory holds that the coup was orchestrated directly to preclude Plaintiff Bernstein from testifying at the Judiciary Committee hearing that was simultaneously ongoing in the Albany Capital building regarding allegations that Law Firms and Lawyers are Stealing Intellectual Properties from Inventors / Clients by committing Frauds Upon the US Patent Office, Worldwide Patent Offices and more. The testimony would have then gone on to include the attempted Cover-Up of the Crimes through Violations of Public Offices, by the same Law Firms and Lawyers that committed the Original Crimes, several of whom were at the hearing[13], several Self-Representing themselves before this Court in this Lawsuit.

Judge Winter’s Denial of Stay to join u.s. government officials ACTS AS title 18 obstruction

This Court is fully aware of its Legal Duties and Obligations under JC, ACC, PORR and Law to address and negate all COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law and further notify all State, Federal, Disciplinary and other appropriate Authorities of all COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, prior to adjudicating matters. Plaintiff has formally petitioned the Court through prior Motions to perform such Legal Duties and Obligations and this Court has failed formally to issue even a courteous reply and instead continued to act in defiance of its own Rules. To fail these Legal Duties and Obligations and allow the COI and Violations of the JC, ACC, PORR and Law to continue is to deny Due Process by creating Obstruction of Justice in this Court.

As recognized by this Court in Dunton v. Lawton cited in my Motion, "there are at least two reasons why a court should satisfy itself that no Conflict exists or at least provide notice to the affected party if one does. First, a court is under a continuing obligation to supervise the members of it’s Bar. E.g., In re Taylor, 567 F.2d at 1191; see Musicus v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 621 F.2d 742, 744 (5th Cir.1980) (per curiam) (district court obligated to take measures against unethical conduct occurring in proceedings before it). Second, trial courts have a duty "to exercise that degree of control required by the facts and circumstances of each case to assure the litigants of a fair trial." Koufakis v. Carvel, 425 F.2d 892, 900-01 (2d Cir.1970); see ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(A)(4)." As the US Supreme Court has held, due process Violations may arise by the failure to address conflicts. See, Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261, 101 S.Ct. 1097, 67 L.Ed.2d 220 (1981) (divided loyalties of counsel may create due process Violation).

In the face of long established law in the US Second Circuit and opposite case law, Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Winter denied the prior Motion filed by Plaintiff seeking a Stay on Appeal pending resolution of COI, Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law and requesting involvement by the DOJ and others on behalf of the United States, despite knowledge of Wolfe’s active conflicted direct involvement at this Court. Such denial included a request by Plaintiff to conduct a Conference Call with the Office of White House Counsel, Office of US Attorney General and other appropriate parties pertaining to the issues and requests presented.

Despite this Court’s direct knowledge that Wolfe is a named Defendant and Witness in Plaintiff’s Lawsuit causing Conflict in Violation of the Court’s own Rules, yet the Court refuses to resolve, regulate or even acknowledge or mitigate the Conflicts by Conference or any other mechanism. Current US Second Circuit Clerk Wolfe directly provided critical information to Plaintiff while working at the First Dept, implicating Defendant Proskauer Lawyer and First Dept DDC Officer, Defendant Steven C. Krane (Krane) and First Department Chief Counsel, Defendant Thomas Cahill (Cahill), informing Plaintiff they were Violating ACC, PORR and Law. Wolfe exposed Violations caused by Krane’s handling of First Dept DDC Disciplinary Complaints against Defendants Proskauer, Meltzer, Rubenstein and Joao, while concealing his CONFLICT caused by Krane’s involvement in the Iviewit Disciplinary Complaints while a Proskauer Partner and simultaneously an Officer of the First Dept DDC, as further defined herein and in the Amended Complaint.

Anderson and Wolfe, both now Witnesses for Plaintiff, together add substantive corroboration to Plaintiff’s complaints of Public Office Corruption at the First Dept DDC that Obstructed COURT proceedings and were part of a Fraud on the Court in an effort to deny Due Process to Disciplinary Complaints filed with the New York State courts. Further, Winter’s action in ruling against a Stay of the Appeal to seek intervention by the USAG was ripe with Conflict, given Wolfe's star role in the upcoming Anderson trial. Winter’s relation to Wolfe professionally and personally without Conflict resolution, at minimum, causes the Appearance of Impropriety and additional Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law in this Court’s handling of this Lawsuit.

The Conflicts by Winter and Wolfe are now ever so prominent given the recent ruling by Scheindlin finding a valid First Amendment claim for “Retaliation” by Anderson against the First Dept DDC for speaking out against the “Systemic” Public Office Corruption within the First Dept and First Dept DDC. Yet, in the underlying action filed by Plaintiff, prior to Scheindlin’s finding of possible Public Office Corruption in Anderson and prior to advancing the Anderson matter for Trial, Scheindlin herself had already noted that “substantive issues” including “conflicts” existed in Plaintiff’s Lawsuit, whereby in a Court Order dated March 21 2008[14] Scheindlin claims,

Any further consideration of the substantive issues raised by plaintiffs, including plaintiffs' requests regarding conflicts of interest, must await the resolution of anticipated motions to dismiss.

However, in this most bizarre ruling, prior to the finding of “Systemic” Public Office Corruption in her Opinion and Order denying Summary Judgment in the “Legally Related” Anderson Lawsuit, Scheindlin determined not to address the Conflicts in Plaintiff’s Lawsuit until after Motions to Dismiss were decided. Scheindlin then dismissed the Lawsuit based on Pleadings knowingly tendered in Conflict and Violation of ACC, PORR and Law by Opposing Counsel. Such Pleadings act as part of the larger Fraud on the Court, therefore the Pleadings and the subsequent Rulings based on them, as part of a Fraud on the Court have no value and will be stricken eventually.

Scheindlin acknowledges “substantive issues” including “conflict” and then improperly, illegally and prejudicially to Plaintiff Appellant Bernstein’s rights fails to execute her Judicial Legal Obligations, prior to or after deciding the Motions to Dismiss. Then, as if dismissing the Lawsuit somehow relieved Scheindlin of her Judicial Legal Obligations under JC, ACC and Law to report the Misconduct and Violations by the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials practicing before her to the proper Authorities, Scheindlin instead created a shield by concealing them.

Scheindlin’s bizarre dismissal occurred despite the fact that the NYAG Assistant AG, Monica Connell, when confronted regarding the NYAG conflicts, indicated that Conflicts in the Lawsuit should be resolved by the USDC and not by the NYAG[15]. The comments and actions by Connell are inherently contradictory and serve as a basis for reversal of the Scheindlin Dismissal Order, upon negating any existing COI at play or moving the matters to a Non-Conflicted court.

Scheindlin Flawed Dismissal & Failure to Remove & REPORT MISCONDUCT & CONFLICT. this court’s failure to resolve conflicts as Cause for Title 18 Obstruction Charges

Despite Anderson’s direct references to the Iviewit complaints at the First Dept DDC and First Dept, Scheindlin proceeded without allowing any of the “Legally Related” Lawsuits to join the Anderson Lawsuit in Discovery and further related proceedings despite having marked the “Legally Related” cases “related” in the first instance. The March 21, 2008 Scheindlin Order exposes Violations of ACC, PORR and Law and creates reversible errors as Scheindlin acknowledged “substantive” COI and other unknown “substantive issues” on the one hand and on the other allows the Lawsuit to proceed with Pleadings tendered by those in Conflict. For example, Defendant Proskauer, Legally representing Defendant Proskauer in Violation of ACC, moved the Scheindlin court to Stay Service of the Amended Complaint[16], serving certain Amended Complaint Defendants only, despite the fact that Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint timely and according to court rules at the time, which should have mandated service on all Defendants. Yet, defying the court’s own rules, Scheindlin ruled in favor of Proskauer’s Motion to Stay Service of the Amended Complaint[17] tendered in Conflict, thus interfering with Plaintiff’s legal right to service and Due Process.

If Proskauer was Conflicted at the time of their Motion to Stay Service, which the firm was and remains Conflicted, it was then Improper and Reversible for Scheindlin to permit the Law Firm, a Partnership, to submit Conflicted Pleadings and Motions before the Court on their own behalf that Violate ACC and Law by not addressing the conflicts first. As the Pleading and Motions are submitted in Violation of ACC, it follows that Scheindlin would be unable to Rule on an Improper Pleading or Motion before the Court. The Illegal Pleadings and moving papers submitted by Conflicted Counsel and the Illegal Rulings tendered in response to those Illegal Pleadings by Scheindlin, combine to create a Fraud on the Court that acts to Obstruct Justice and deny Plaintiff Due Process. Scheindlin should have instead followed JC, ACC and Law, which would have forced Proskauer to find Non-Conflicted counsel to submit pleadings on their behalf. Further, Scheindlin should have denied the Conflicted Illegal Pleadings that Non-Conflicted counsel might not have made, having no interest in the Lawsuit. More importantly, Proskauer Partners being direct Witnesses in the case and Defendants should have wanted to avoid Improper and Illegal conduct if they had no blood upon their hands. Certainly, they would have hired counsel to avoid the OBVIOUS Conflicts and Appearance of Impropriety their continued Conflicted and Unlawful Conduct creates and the Liabilities created for all the Public and Private parties entangled in the Amended Complaint caused by the continued misconduct.

Similar to the USDC, this Court has permitted Proskauer and other named Defendants to continue to Self-Represent in conflict despite multiple Lawyers within the Firms being direct Defendants and Fact Witnesses to critical parts of the allegations in the underlying Amended Complaint and despite the Law Firms being Partnerships. The Criminal and financial implications of the Crimes will devastate the Law Firms and all Partners in the partnerships who through the partnership are all implicated in the Crimes and now involved in the continuing Cover-Up Crimes through continuous Violations of ACC, PORR and Law that create further Obstruction through continuous Frauds on the Courts.

Since dismissal of the Lawsuit, Judge Scheindlin has still failed to resolve the COI or identify whom the “substantive” Conflicts or “substantive issues” involve (a Conflict mystery) but more importantly has FAILED to report to the proper Authorities the Violations. JC, ACC, PORR and Law all Legally Mandate Reporting “substantive conflict” to all proper Authorities, including whatever other “substantive” issues Scheindlin refers to in her Order. This failure continues despite Judge Scheindlin having since issued a Decision and Order finding corruption in the Anderson case and permitting that case to proceed to trial. Plaintiff has repeatedly complained to both the USDC and this Court about many separate and distinct COI, Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, against multiple Conflicted Lawyers, Law Firms, State Actors and State Agencies who are representing Defendants in the Lawsuit. Complaints extending back to the USDC, the State Courts, the initial Attorney Disciplinary Departments and the Civil Court in Florida under Judge Jorge Labarga, all of these conflict infested legal actions defined further in the Amended Complaint and prior motions to this Court, all fraught with Conflicts, Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

The initial Disciplinary Complaints against the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials in New York, Florida and Virginia all found fraught with Conflict and Violations of ACC, PORR and Law, creating the overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety. In New York, the finding of Conflict in the First Dept DDC led to First Dept COURT ORDERED INVESTIGATIONS of the same Lawyers and Law Firms now Self-Representing in Conflict before this Court. All of the prior Conflicts CONCEALED and inserted in the Disciplinary Complaint process by the Defendants to deflect complaints against them filed in those states, as allegations of Fraud were uncovered against the core conspirators Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer.

Conflicts Confirmed, Ordered for Investigation, Acknowledged by a Federal Judge and the State Courts, yet all continue in this Court, defying logic and Violating JC, ACC, PORR and Law. This Court prior to any further substantive acts must address the question of whom and what the “substantive issues” and COI involve that Scheindlin identified and failed to negate prior to adjudicating the Lawsuit. This Court cannot be free of the Prejudicial influence of the Conflicts in the Scheindlin court, especially relying upon Rulings that may be Illegal and in fact is in perpetuation of them by failing to report them and allowing them to continue. Scheindlin erred in failing to resolve the Conflicts before or after her determination in the Motions to Dismiss, allowing the Conflicted Law Firms and Lawyers to continue to move the Lawsuit to dismissal, constituting reason for soon to be filed judicial complaints regarding Scheindlin’s Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

All prior Determinations, Rulings or other Pleadings influenced by “substantive” COI by any Defendant counsel, renders them Inadmissible, Illegal, Dismissible and Punishable under JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Scheindlin failed to exercise her Legal Duties and Obligations to Report and Regulate Violations of ACC, PORR and Law committed by the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials acting before her court. This Court’s similar INACTIONS constitute not only Violations of JC, ACC and Law but also further act to Obstruct Justice by furthering the Fraud on the Court. The Obstruction created denies Plaintiff Due Process rights and rights to his Intellectual Properties and Royalties that underlie the Conflict matters. Such Property rights guaranteed in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution regarding Inventor rights, the 5^th and 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution, and other Federal and State property laws, including Violations of Anti-Trust Law, RICO and many other State, Federal and International Laws, all clearly defined in the Amended Complaint.

The Conflicts are clear, in mass and Violate numerous JC, ACC, PORR and Law regarding the Pleadings of almost all opposing counsel in this Lawsuit, many whom are also Defendants and Witnesses in this Lawsuit. Action to resolve the “substantive” Conflicts must be immediate and prior to any other action or Ruling by this Court in order to remove the Illegal influence of the Conflicts over all past proceedings and enable moving forward in a judicially ethical manner in compliance with JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Despite Scheindlin’s flawed and perhaps Culpable actions to dismiss the Lawsuit prior to Conflict resolution when bound by JC, ACC, PORR and Law to remove “Conflict” in any proceeding and report all such Conflicted Parties to the proper Authorities for disposition leaves this Court with resolving the Conflicts prior to further adjudication.

Failure to eliminate Conflict in the Lawsuit prior to adjudication by this Court or any court it is transferred to immediately Prejudices the rights of Plaintiff and thus already in fact has Prejudiced this Lawsuit in this Court, further denying Due Process rights to Plaintiff. For this Court to continue to allow multiple Defendants to be represented by Conflicted Counsel or represent themselves in Conflict and continue to allow Judicial Officers to act outside the established JC, ACC, PORR and Law, further denies Due Process and further acts to Aid and Abet the efforts to subterfuge Plaintiff’s rights through continued Obstruction. This Court, by allowing the Conflicts to continue and failing to affirm or deny its own potential Conflicts, despite repeated written requests, has therefore already become a Culpable Party to such continued Conspiracy to deny Plaintiff’s rights in the New York Courts and now the Federal Courts, through further Illegal Abuse of Process and Fraud on the Courts.

Relation of DEFENDANTS to Ponzi Schemes OF MADOFF, Stanford, dreier, okun & the markit group holding antitrust INVESTIGATION

This Court may take Judicial Notice of the Massive Wall Street meltdown occurring since Scheindlin’s Dismissal Order of August 2008 and should note that many of the major Wall Street companies involved in the meltdown also are part of the Iviewit claims. Exposed in a July 15, 2009, article in AmLaw Daily[18] titled “Proskauer Advises Company at Center of Derivatives Probe” is that Defendant Proskauer acting as Legal Advisor to Markit is at the center of an Ongoing Antitrust Investigation by the US DOJ into the TWENTY SIX TRILLION DOLLAR credit default swap market. This the same credit default swap market that has sunk this Country into near financial ruins, leaving millions of people worldwide in financial ruin, jobless, starving, medically deprived and homeless, again, we find Proskauer involved.

The Court can take further Judicial Notice of the massive financial Ponzi and other financial schemes recently unfolding and revealed during this same general timeframe and again find relations too many of the Defendants in this Lawsuit. While paling in comparison to the possible Antitrust Violations regarding Market Manipulation in the Trillions of Dollars are the Billion Dollar Frauds that have further correlations and relationships to Defendants. Evidence of involvement of Iviewit Defendants found in the following financial frauds, including but not limited to:

1. the Bernard Lawrence "Bernie" Madoff[19] ( Madoff ), Chairman of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC ( BMIS ) Ponzi scheme,

2. the Sir Robert Allen Stanford ( Stanford ), Chairman of Stanford Financial Group of Companies ( SFG )[20] Ponzi scheme,

3. Willis Group Holdings involvement in the Stanford Ponzi and Proskauer’s representation of Willis[21],

4. the Marc Stuart Dreier[22] ( Dreier ) of Defendant Dreier & Baritz ( DB ) financial Fraud and

5. the Edward Okun of 1031 Tax Group Fraud.

The COI that continues to prevail in this Court and the lower courts act to Obstruct Justice and were they removed and prosecuted instead of railroaded and further these Schemes and Defendants, including Proskauer, Dreier, Foley and Others, are found directly involved in the above referenced Schemes, then prosecution may have stopped these Schemes years’ earlier. Had the Courts and the Disciplinary Departments acted in accordance with JC, ACC, PORR and Law and not allowed Conflicts to prevail, this could have prevented massive damage to the Victims of these Schemes and instead the Obstruction allowed the schemes to flourish. These schemes appear to be highly sophisticated financial schemes with Lawyers and Former SEC Agents operating or involved in almost all of them. As evidenced herein and in the Amended Complaint[23], all of these Schemes may be efforts to Launder the Stolen and Converted Intellectual Property Royalties of Plaintiff, converted Illegally by Defendants in these matters for their own gain. Other financial crimes may be due to the Fox in the Henhouse analogy where once in, the Fox went on a criminal feeding frenzy, unopposed by any threat of Justice, as the Gonzales Attorney Scandal for political favor, created an Injustice Department for these Schemes to flourish.

The Court is respectfully reminded of the nature of the allegations in my Amended Complaint and that it was the powerful and politically connected Law Firms of Proskauer and Foley, named Defendants in this action, that were at the heart of the scheme to steal my Intellectual Properties worth a Trillion Dollars or more. The Original Intellectual Property Crimes committed through a continuous series of Private and Professional Misconducts and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law which were then combined with Public Office Crimes in order to Cover-Up the Original Crimes. The Cover-Up Crimes committed by Defendant Justices, Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials, creating a shield from prosecution for the Defendants by denying Due Process to the Plaintiff, through Illegally positioning in Conflict and creating Obstruction through further Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

The Court should take Judicial Notice that Proskauer not only has the most clients in the Madoff Scheme (many clients previously thought to be Victim are currently under Investigation[24]) but also simultaneously lies at the very heart of the Stanford / SFG Scheme, Proskauer and Proskauer Partners directly implicated in Stanford / SFG.[25] Defendant Proskauer has been identified in SEC and FBI Criminal and Civil lawsuits, acting as Stanford and SFG Counsel and coaching SFG employees to Mislead investigators, leading to a court ordered Injunction[26] to Freeze the Assets of Stanford / SFG by that court, applicable to Stanford, SFG, SFG Advisors, SFG Lawyers and the Law Firms.

Proskauer is also counsel to Willis Group Holdings, from Proskauer’s 2002 Annual Review “We continue to represent Willis Group Holdings, one of the largest insurance brokers in the U.S. and globally.”[27] The Willis Group Holdings[28] is being sued as part of the Stanford Ponzi for issuing "safe and soundness" letters to potential investors in Stanford that were intended to attract customers to Stanford, leading to Billions of dollars of loss to Victims.

Defendants Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer’s DIRECT involvement in the Stanford, Madoff, Dreier & Okun Financial Frauds

Defendant Proskauer is directly involved in the Stanford / SFG scheme[29] and the ongoing SEC and FBI federal actions[30] which implicate them in the Criminal Complaints filed by the FBI (i) H-09-140M (ii) 309 MJ 56 and the SEC Civil Complaints (i) 3:09-cv-00298-N (ii) 3:09-cv-00298-L (iii) 1:09-mc-00002-JAD. Proskauer implicated in Aiding and Abetting the Stanford / SFG criminal enterprise in Misleading investigators leading to the arrest of SFG employees, the arrest of Stanford and an injunction on all assets.

In the Deposition of the Chief Information Officer of SFG with the SEC, where the financial Scheme was being unraveled by investigators, the Defendant Proskauer Lawyer Partner Thomas Sjoblom^{^[31]} (Sjoblom), abruptly left the meeting and the next day sent an email to the SEC withdrawing Proskauer’s and his own prior statements and representations. Plaintiff remains confused as to how one can withdraw prior statements but this nonetheless is an obvious area of inquiry of the Proskauer attorneys and defendants. This bizarre behavior by Proskauer and Sjoblom sent red flags to the SEC that something was amiss and caused the SEC to take immediate actions to protect the Victims. In a final meeting with SFG executives Sjoblom claims, “The Party is Over” and urges them to “Pray”[32].

The deposition statements of the arrested SFG executive, Chief Investment Officer Laura Pendergest-Holt combined with news reports naming Proskauer’s Sjoblom as Attorney A in the SEC and FBI federal complaints put Sjoblom dead center in the Scheme. From the Houston Chronicle on Sunday, March 01, 2009,

They included outside Counsel Thomas Sjoblom of Washington, D.C., referred to as Attorney A, who has since withdrawn from representing Stanford.[33]

Inferred from the initial documentation and news reports in those Lawsuits is that Sjoblom conspired and prepared with SFG executives to perpetrate fraudulent statements and records to the SEC investigators and so Aided and Abetted in the totality of the Fraud and Cover-Up. The FBI has arrested and charged Holt with Obstructing a US Government investigation, including her involvement with Sjoblom in preparing false and misleading information to give investigators. The FBI has arrested Stanford since the prior Motion to this Court alerting the Court to these financial Schemes. Proskauer and Sjoblom may be the next ones charged with similar crimes or worse for their involvement in misleading investigators and coaching Holt to lie to authorities, as well as, their direct involvement in the Stanford / SFG crimes.

Holt has filed a civil suit[34] against Proskauer and Sjoblom for Violations of ACC and more that have left this twenty-four year old charged in Federal Civil and Criminal Complaints, claiming that Sjoblom and Proskauer practically forced her to make the falsified representations to the SEC protecting the more involved senior executives of SFG like Stanford. Sjoblom also made the plea to investigators to have Holt represent SFG in the proceedings, yet Sjoblom was acting Counsel for SFG only at Holt’s deposition and only later was it learned under repeated questioning by investigators that Sjoblom was not representing Holt personally at her Deposition, apparently misleading Holt and SEC investigators initially. Proskauer and Sjoblom treated Holt as a Sacrificial Lamb in efforts to protect those who orchestrated the Crimes, including themselves perhaps and then cowardly abandoned her.

Learned since filing the prior Motion to this Court alerting the Court to these Schemes is further relations of Proskauer to the Madoff Scheme. According to TPM news[35], in 2004, an SEC attorney, Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot notified the SEC of the possible Madoff Ponzi Scheme but was forced out of her job at the SEC and later the SEC settled a claim against them filed by Lightfoot. Upon termination from the SEC, Lightfoot turned over her report on Madoff to Jacqueline Wood ( Wood ). Wood then buried the report that could have exposed the Ponzi years earlier and when she left the SEC, Wood took a partnership at, you guessed it, Defendant Proskauer.

When combined with other information it starts to further tie the Madoff and Stanford Schemes together, as stated in the Times Online on February 18, 2009,

‘Perhaps the most alarming is that Stanford Investment Bank has exposure to losses from the Madoff fraud scheme despite the bank's public assurance to the contrary’, said the SEC.[36]

To FURTHER PERMIT the Defendants in this Lawsuit, who simultaneously represent themselves in this ongoing RICO, to continue to move this Court on behalf of themselves, without first addressing the multiple layers of Conflict as required by the Laws of this Second Circuit under Dunton and related progeny, is absurd and highly unethical. This unethical behavior Violates this Court's Duty to first make Inquiry into and then resolve the Conflicts cited herein in accordance with Law and its own Rules and PRIOR to Adjudication, not to mention the simultaneous failure of this Court to uphold the New York State Ethics and Disciplinary Rules and Regulations in opposite of JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

Finally, there is a common theme, which may have led to the lax Oversight in these unfolding scandals through infiltration of key regulatory posts, in fact, Law 360 states in a recent article

SEC Enforcement Head Resigns amid Madoff Probe. New York (February 09, 2009) -- Amid criticism stemming from the Madoff scandal, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Director of Enforcement Linda Thomsen is stepping down and could be replaced by Deutsche Bank AG General Counsel Robert Khuzami, according to reports.[37]

Reported from the Memphis Daily News, as it relates directly to these matters:

Before entering private practice, Sjoblom had worked for the SEC for 20 years. From 1987 to 1999, he was an assistant chief litigation counsel in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement – the same division of the agency whose representatives were peppering arrested CIO of Stanford, Pendergest-Holt with questions Feb. 10. After she was put under oath, Sjoblom [of Proskauer] immediately got down to business. Pre-empting the SEC officials, according to a transcript of the day’s testimony, he asked:

“First of all, has there been a criminal referral in this matter?”

[SEC Investigator] King informed Sjoblom of a SEC Form 1662 served upon both he and his client Holt. Among other things, that form reads, “The commission often makes its files available to other governmental agencies, particularly United States Attorneys and state prosecutors. There is a likelihood that information supplied by you will be made available to such agencies where appropriate.”

At press time, criminal charges had not yet been filed against the three executives who were the subject of SEC civil charges last week.

Sjoblom followed up with another question to investigators asking whether the SEC was currently working with the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Northern District of Texas or elsewhere.

“Mr. Sjoblom, I just referred you to SEC Form 1662,” King replied.

Objections

Sjoblom pressed on…[38]

The Court should already see how many levels of Conflict continue to plague these matters with Proskauer’s and Others Self-Representations and until stopped, the Public remains exposed through lax regulators and complacent courts or perhaps complicity by the regulators and courts to further Schemes. As this Court, the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F. 3d 670 ( 1994 ), " When a trial judge is made aware of an apparent Conflict of Interest, a duty of inquiry arises to protect the represented defendant's interests. See id. at 272, 101 S.Ct. at 1104; Dunton v. County of Suffolk, 729 F.2d 903, 908-09 (2d Cir.), modified, 748 F.2d 69 (2d Cir.1984)."

This Court must now perform its duty of making inquiry into the multiple levels of Conflict herein or stay such appeal and response briefs by Proskauer and other Conflicted Defendants until federal investigators have ferreted out the Conflicts and determined if this Court can proceed legally. Similarly, the USDC’s failure to negate Conflict creates reversible error and possible grounds for Obstruction of Justice charges and more.

In the fraudulent hedge fund scheme orchestrated by Samuel Israel (whom faked his death in a bogus airplane crash) of the Bayou Group[39] we again find Defendant Proskauer, this time hiring Jeff J. Marwil formerly of Winston Straw and who currently serves as sole managing member of the Bayou Group in its Chapter 11 cases.

In the Dreier scheme, we find former Proskauer partner Sheila M. Gowan[40] selected as the bankruptcy trustee in the Dreier case and again Defendant Proskauer referred Plaintiff to patent attorney Defendant Joao, later fired by Plaintiff for suspected Patent Theft and then transferring to Defendant Dreier Baritz. Again, the web of Conflicts encircles these matters with Proskauer always near the center.

Defendant Dreier, who became involved in this lawsuit through Proskauer and Meltzer attorney Defendant Joao, has now formally pled guilty in federal court to being involved in a Seven Hundred Million Dollar ( US $700,000,000.00 ) financial Fraud and has been sentenced to twenty years with a loss of all assets.

Finally, and most recently, Defendant Foley is being sued for their part in yet another massive Ponzi scheme regarding The 1031 Tax Group LLC schemed by Edward H. Okun who has already pled guilty to that crime and was sentenced to 100 years in prison^{^[41]}^and[42].

All these schemes, Drier, Stanford, Madoff, Okun and more may be efforts by Defendant Proskauer and their Co-Conspirators to launder the converted monies from Plaintiff’s stolen Intellectual Properties. Based upon prior and newly discovered information that support the allegations made herein and in the prior Motion to this Court regarding investigating Defendants involved in the Stanford, Madoff and Dreier schemes; Plaintiff now moves this Court to renew and reargue the Court's prior Denial of Plaintiff’s prior Emergency Motion[43] to investigate the Defendants Proskauer, Foley, Meltzer and Dreier regarding the financial crimes of Madoff, Stanford, Dreier and Okun. Plaintiff – Appellant likewise is Moving the Court simultaneously to notify all proper Authorities, including the courts where legal actions regarding these frauds are already proceeding and request injunction on all funds recovered. Injunction until it can be determined if the financial schemes are related to this Lawsuit and further determine if the legal proceedings of these financial schemes may be further schemes or Frauds on the Courts to launder Plaintiff’s converted royalties.

Press reports further allege that Stanford has been under investigation for many years, including investigations for his involvement with DRUG CARTELS and Money Laundering Schemes on behalf of such Cartels. This puts Proskauer squarely at the center of not only the financial Frauds but now also ties them to an Organized and Violent Criminal Enterprises. Further, Portfolio.com reports,

Authorities tell ABC News that as part of the investigation, which has been ongoing since last year, Mexican authorities detained one of Stanford's private planes. According to officials, checks found inside the plane were believed to be connected to the Gulf cartel, reputed to be Mexico's most violent gang. [44]

From the Guardian.co.uk online,

The FBI is probing possible money laundering linked to Mexico's infamous narco-trafficking Gulf Cartel in its investigation of Texan billionaire Sir Allen Stanford, US law enforcement sources have told the Observer. An FBI source close to the investigation would not give exact details but confirmed the agency was looking at links to international drug gangs as part of the huge investigation into Stanford's banking activities. [45]

The Proskauer firm and related clients are also squarely in the center of the massive financial Ponzi scheme involving Bernard Madoff that involves ignored Whistleblower allegations by regulators going back many years before government action occurred. In one instance, a Whistleblower complaint that was turned over to the SEC investigators was then buried by an SEC employee who later left the SEC and took a Proskauer partnership, as defined herein.

When combined with other information it starts to further tie the schemes together, as stated in the Times Online on February 18, 2009,

‘Perhaps the most alarming is that Stanford Investment Bank has exposure to losses from the Madoff fraud scheme despite the bank's public assurance to the contrary’, said the SEC.[46]

For the Court to PERMIT the Defendants, who simultaneously Self-Represent themselves as Counsel in Conflict in this ongoing RICO, to continue to move the Court without first addressing the multiple layers of Conflict, as required by the Laws of this Second Circuit under Dunton and related progeny, is absurd. This unethical behavior Violates this Court's Duty to first make Inquiry into and then resolve the Conflicts cited herein, in accordance with JC, ACC, PORR and Law and PRIOR TO adjudication.

Finally, there is a common theme, which may have led to the lax Oversight on many unfolding scandals through infiltration of key regulatory posts. In fact, Law 360 states in a recent article

Reported from the Memphis Daily News, as it relates directly to these matters:

Before entering private practice, Sjoblom had worked for the SEC for 20 years. From 1987 to 1999, he was an assistant chief litigation counsel in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement [emphasis added] – the same division of the agency whose representatives were peppering arrested CIO of Stanford, Pendergest-Holt with questions Feb. 10. After she was put under oath, Sjoblom (of Proskauer) immediately got down to business. Pre-empting the SEC officials, according to a transcript of the day’s testimony, he asked:

“First of all, has there been a criminal referral in this matter?”

At press time, criminal charges had not yet been filed against the three executives who were the subject of SEC civil charges last week.

Sjoblom followed up with another question to investigators asking whether the SEC was currently working with the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Northern District of Texas or elsewhere.

“Mr. Sjoblom, I just referred you to SEC Form 1662,” King replied.

Objections

Sjoblom pressed on…[48]

The Court should already see how many levels of Conflict continue to plague these matters with Proskauer’s and Others Self-Representations and until stopped, the Public remains exposed through lax regulators and complacent courts or perhaps complicity by the regulators and courts. As this Court, the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F. 3d 670 ( 1994 ), " When a trial judge is made aware of an apparent Conflict of Interest, a duty of inquiry arises to protect the represented defendant's interests. See id. at 272, 101 S.Ct. at 1104; Dunton v. County of Suffolk, 729 F.2d 903, 908-09 (2d Cir.), modified, 748 F.2d 69 (2d Cir.1984)."

defendant client frauds

Plaintiff reminds this Court of the nature of my claims, as original Inventor and Owner of “Backbone” digital imaging and video technologies that not only transformed the Internet and Television but also revolutionized a wide range of products and markets, including but far from limited to;

1. Defense and other applications by the US Government (i.e. Satellite Imaging, the Hubble, Weaponry Imaging, Flight and Space Simulators, etc.),

2. Websites Worldwide - note the almost universal use of the inventions on every website that creates, hosts or uses web video (i.e. Google, You Tube / Yahoo, Microsoft Media, Adobe Media Player, Real Player, etc.) and the number of daily worldwide end users watching and posting videos,

3. Digital Television Creation and Transmission - video scaling increased channel output for cable and satellite companies and gave end users a minimum 75% more channels,

4. Imaging Applications – Almost all Medical Imaging devices use scaling imaging and video technologies. Cell Phone video would be impossible, as would Internet video, to transmit in full screen, full frame rate, without Plaintiff’s technologies, thereby creating these markets. Digital Zoom technologies that allow zooming on images with increased magnification, for example Google Maps, Digital Camera’s, Televisions, Hubble, etc. use the Technologies and,

5. Video and imaging hardware and software applications almost all use the technologies.

Note that no Party or Defendant in these matters has ever factually contested (or been required to contest) the basic claim of myself as the original Inventor of the Inventions in any courts or proceedings. Yet, Defendants have been permitted to continue to wrongfully deny and deprive Plaintiff and other rightful owners of the rights, monies, royalties and benefits of the technologies on a continuing basis, which is part of what makes the Dismissal Order in error and cause for reversal, as the Crimes continue on a daily basis. Further, some of the earliest companies to enter into Non-Disclosure Agreements and Strategic Alliance agreements were Defendants Lockheed Martin, Intel Co. and Silicon Graphics, Inc.[49], companies with historically massive contracts with the US Government. Defendant Lockheed regarded as the largest defense and weaponry company in existence in the world and the largest user of “cutting edge” and “black box” digital imaging and video technologies.

At the time of the planning and execution of the initial theft and conspiracy to steal these Holy Grail technologies[50], valued at a Trillion Dollars or more, Lockheed, Intel and SGI were owners of a company called Real 3D, Inc. ( Real 3D ) located in Orlando Florida on property owned by Lockheed Martin. Intel was a twenty percent minority owner of Real 3D and then after learning of the technologies through agreement and contract with Plaintiff and Real 3D in 1998-1999, Intel bought Real 3D from Lockheed and SGI in a transaction where the details remain unknown.

All three companies have since Violated NDA’s, Strategic Alliances and License Agreements through the Real 3D contracts and failed to the report their knowing infringement of the technologies in their annual reports as required under FASB No. 5[51] regarding reporting liabilities. Real 3D was at the time under contract and license with Iviewit and Plaintiff, which allowed Real 3D to demonstrate, test and operate the technologies directly from the Real 3D laboratories.[52]

Link to Real 3D correspondence and evidence involving Iviewit @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/bibona%202.pdf

Link to Defendant Proskauer Attorney Christopher Clarke Wheeler ( Wheeler ) and Real 3D regarding Iviewit matters in 1999 @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/1999%2006%2011%20Wheeler%20to%20Real3d%20acting%20as%20patent%20counsel%202.pdf.

According to Wikipedia[53],

In 1995, Martin Marietta and Lockheed merged to form Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer. Following the merger, Lockheed Martin decided to market their cutting-edge graphics technology for civilian use by setting up Real 3D, Inc. in partnership with Intel and SGI. In 1999, Real 3D sued ATI Technologies over infringement of its patents (originally issued to General Electric in 1988 and 1990) as well as misappropriation of trade secrets (involving the hiring away of several Real 3D engineers). By October 1, 1999, Real 3D was forced to close its doors and Lockheed sold its remaining stake in Real 3D to Intel on October 14. Following the sale, Intel fired all employees and closed the Orlando office. Interestingly, ATI opened an Orlando office and ostensibly retained many former Real 3D designers.

NOTE: THE US DEPT OF JUSTICE SUBPOENAED GRAPHIC Companies in Dec. 2006 for Anti-Trust related Violations, including ATI Technologies that grew out of Intel’s acquisition of REAL 3D, according to ZDNET News @ http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-150460.html .

NOTE: MAJOR COMPANIES THAT SPUN OFF AFTER THIS MERGER, ATI, AMD AND NVIDIA HAVE BEEN UNDER FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST INVESTIGATIONS BY THE US DOJ.

According to Wikipedia[54] and other industry sources:

ATI Technologies Inc. (ATI) was a major Canadian designer and supplier of graphics processing units and motherboard chipsets. In 2006, the company was acquired by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and was renamed the AMD Graphics Product Group or ATI Technologies ULC, although the ATI brand was retained for graphics cards.

The AMD Graphics Product Group is a fabless semiconductor company conducting in-house research and development and outsourcing the manufacturing and assembly of its products. Its main competitor is NVIDIA in the graphics and handheld market. The flagship product, the Radeon series of graphics cards, directly competes with NVIDIA's GeoForce. These two companies' dominance of the market forced other manufacturers into niche roles.

On December 1, 2006, as reported by ZDNET[55], “The U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division has issued Subpoenas to Advanced Micro Devices and Nvidia as part of an investigation into potential antitrust Violations.” According to the article,

The DOJ successfully prosecuted the DRAM (dynamic RAM) industry in 2004 and 2005 for colluding to fix prices in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Some executives were sent to prison and companies such as Infineon and Hynix paid hefty fines. More recently, the DOJ has been looking into the SRAM (static RAM) industry, looking into companies such as Sony, Samsung, and Mitsubishi.

A FURTHER NEW EXHIBIT IS PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT’S FORMAL COMPLAINT TO THE SEC REGARDING THE INTEL CORPORATION AND REFERENCES ORIGINAL TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING DEFENDANTS LOCKHEED MARTIN, SILICON GRAPHICS, INTEL AND REAL 3D, ALL UNDER NDA WITH PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT BERNSTEIN AT ALL RELEVANT TIMES HEREIN.

EVIDENCE ITEM NO. 986 AT WWW.IVIEWIT.TV WEBSITE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN THE AMENDED C0MPLAINT HEREIN: BERNSTEIN INTEL SEC COMPLAINT MARCH 2009:

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20FINAL%20Intel%20SEC%20Complaint%20SIGNED2073.pdf

This Court is also reminded of the large number of Fortune 1000 companies that entered into NDA’s, Strategic Alliance Agreements and other Contracts[56] with myself and the Iviewit companies, including the largest communications, banking and financial companies, including, AT&T, Comcast, JP Morgan, Kodak, Dell, Sony Digital Pictures, Warner Bros., AOLTW, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin, Wachovia, and more.

In particular, this Court is directed to Evidence Link No. 75[57] @ www.iviewit.tv homepage which is a July 22, 2000 Marketing Letter with other material by Defendant Proskauer Attorney Wheeler regarding PROSKAUER marketing the inventions to their clients. In the Marketing Letter, Proskauer Partner Defendant Wheeler adds a Representative CLIENT List of Defendant Proskauer’s. The clients include Time Warner Inc., MGM, Universal Music, Miss Universe, Inc., National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, National Broadcasting Corporation, National Governor’s Association, Museum of Modern Art, etc, showing the vast network of companies involved with Proskauer early on. Almost all of the Proskauer clients on that list are now infringing on Plaintiff’s inventions that directly benefit Defendant Proskauer and their Client Defendant MPEGLA LLC, to the disadvantage of Plaintiff

enron / arthur andersen scandal ties to defendants in these matters

The Court again reminded of the Amended Complaint allegations that the Enron / Arthur Andersen ( Andersen ) accounting and financial Frauds were uncovered after Andersen began auditing the books and financial affairs of the Iviewit companies. Crossbow Ventures required this audit[58] for their SBIC Loans as Crossbow’s funds were composed of two-thirds Small Business Administration funds. Andersen’s audit discovered initial evidence of Illegally created fraudulent shell companies, other accounting irregularities and allegations that Iviewit Accountants, Law Firms and Lawyers had misled auditors[59].

Strangely enough, Enron Broadband[60] was the unit of Enron that may have been the largest factor in the collapse of Enron and Enron Broadband was planning a deal with Blockbuster, a company created by Defendant Wayne Huizenga, the Seed Capital Investor in Iviewit. The problem was that Enron booked revenue for the project before there was a dollar of revenue. The Blockbuster/Enron deal could not have existed without Plaintiff’s Technologies. Once Iviewit was under scrutiny of investors and auditors and evidence surfaced regarding the Enron / Blockbuster / Iviewit deal, a deal that Iviewit Management, the Board of Directors and Investors had no idea about, except those Proskauer referred insiders, as defined in the Amended Complaint, the Enron / Blockbuster deal collapsed, as Enron had no technologies to fulfill the Fraudulent revenue projections. There appears to be relations to the Utah streaming tests done by Enron[61] and Proskauer referred management Defendant Utley, who came in under false pretense as later defined herein. Finally, recent reports show possible retrials of the Enron affairs,

In addition to this case, one or more of the defendants accused of crimes over activities in Enron's broad-band division [emphasis added] could be retried. [62]

Perhaps this time the Enron retrials will include the information regarding the Iviewit matters, which Plaintiff, similar to Harry Markopoulos the suppressed Whistleblower of the Madoff affairs, has tried to bring to the attention of Authorities for several years, including now this Court.” This Court should on its own Motion, notify those courts involved with the Enron Lawsuits of the pertinent information regarding this Lawsuit.

Once Andersen uncovered possible Fraud, internal investigations began into the stolen IP. On or about that time, executives of Warner Bros. uncovered further initial evidence indicating Fraud during their Legal Due Diligence for an investment in Iviewit, offered by Wachovia in a Private Placement Memorandum[63]. Fraud including possible IP crimes involving switching patents on file at the USPTO versus what was shown to investors, possible corporate Fraud regarding the corporations setup (similar to what Andersen discovers) and two Illegal Legal Actions, including Fraud on a Federal Bankruptcy Court and a Florida Civil Court. Legal Actions that the Board of Directors, Management and Shareholders had never heard of before, informed of the actions by AOLTW/WB and only now is Plaintiff learning the full extent of these Frauds on the Courts after years of working with Federal and International authorities, including the USPTO, the EPI and FBI figuring them out.

Certain of the information to piece the full Corporate Frauds together with the IP Crimes, is awaiting legislation already presented to Hon. Senator Dianne Feinstein at the prompting of the US Patent Office, information critical to understanding the Frauds, as defined later herein and in the Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff-Appellant Bernstein prevented by current law from obtaining vital and critical information regarding the US Patent Office and International Patent Authorities regarding Fraudulent Patent Applications filed by named Defendants involving the USPTO, filed in others names, despite all reasonable and possible diligence thereby further supporting tolling of any statute of limitation in the event there is any necessity. Further making the District Court’s Dismissal erroneous and premature and therefore should be Vacated and Remanded to an appropriate non – conflicted court IMMEDIATELY. The Amended Complaint contains full preliminary information regarding the Civil Case involving Defendant Proskauer and Iviewit matters in the W. Palm Beach, FL Civil Circuit Court and the Involuntary Bankruptcy in Florida involving Defendant Proskauer and Defendant Proskauer referred management and clients, including Real 3D, Inc.

The finding of initial evidence of Fraud at the time by Warner Bros. killed the investment to Iviewit that was to be in addition to licensing agreements already in place at the time between Warner Bros. and Iviewit. This also killed several other major licensing contracts underway, including Sony and even the funding contracted for with Venture Capitalists. With the Iviewit Intellectual Property theft and financial Crimes exposed at the time, the Enron/Blockbuster deal died instantly and in the next instant Arthur Andersen went extinct and Enron went bankrupt virtually overnight. Both Andersen and Enron then began a document shredding party to rid the evidence of their crimes[64], allegedly including the evidence regarding the attempted theft of the IP. Proskauer was at all times at the heart of all of these Iviewit audits, deals and contracts acting as Counsel and therefore central to the Crimes cited herein and in the Amended Complaint.

The Court again reminded that the allegations herein are neither conjecture, nor speculation, nor Conspiracy Theory but contrary to “Conspiracy Theory”, but instead depict a very real “Legal RICO Conspiracy” whereby various US Government Agencies and other law enforcement agencies of States and abroad are in Ongoing Investigations[65] of the Iviewit matters[66]. One Investigation includes the Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline (OED) of the US Patent Office (USPTO), Harry I. Moatz (Moatz), who directed that I, Inventor Eliot Ivan Bernstein, file charges of “Fraud on the USPTO” with the Commissioner of Patents. The filing led to the Commissioner of the US Patent Office placing my Patents in Suspended[67] status pending Investigation by the US Patent Office OED, the USPTO and the FBI. The Investigations are of Hundreds of Crimes, including crimes directly against agencies of the UNITED STATES and FOREIGN NATIONS, including but not limited to, submitting Fraudulent Intellectual Property applications to a Federal Agency and International Intellectual Property Agencies, both Federal Crimes, committed no less, through mail and wire activity sufficient for RICO predicate crimes and more.

NOTE THE HOMEPAGE @ WWW.IVIEWIT.TV LINKS TO DOCUMENTARY AND RELATED EVIDENCE http://www.iviewit.tv/#Evidence #1 THRU #1086 AGAINST DEFENDANTS. ALL EVIDENCE AND THE ENTIRE IVIEWIT WEBSITE FULLY INCORPORATED IN THEIR ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE HEREIN as originally pleaded in the Amended Complaint.

Note, USPTO OED Director Moatz directed these filings and charges of “Fraud on the USPTO” personally, after his Investigations began and upon learning that the Defendant Law Firms and Lawyers who represented Plaintiff had submitted to State Disciplinary Agencies in Virginia, Florida and New York, patently false Intellectual Property Documents not matching those on file with the USPTO. Moatz then formed a US Patent Office team to aid Plaintiff in getting the USPTO filings responded to and put into Suspension. Note, Iviewit’s largest investor Crossbow Ventures, whose funds were two-thirds Small Business Administration funds, also signs the USPTO Complaints of FRAUD ON THE US PATENT OFFICE, lending solid support to the fact that the Small Business Administration funds were also invested in the Fraudulent Iviewit companies and Fraudulent Intellectual Properties.

Examples of Un-resolved Conflicts of interest that act to obstruct Justice through continued Violations of judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes, public office rules & Regulations and law

Conflict of Interest Laws – “Conflict of Interest” indicates a situation where a private interest may influence a public decision. Conflict of Interest Laws are laws and regulations designed to prevent conflicts of interest. These laws may contain provisions related to financial or asset disclosure, exploitation of one's official position and privileges, etc. In defining the Legal and Ethical Violations of Defendants in Conflict, the following JC, AC, PORR and Law are a handful of those Violated in this Court currently, as well as, in previous Courts and the Disciplinary Agencies and State Bar Associations.

Defendants Proskauer & First Dept Conflicts

Existing Conflicts discovered and those further created by Defendant Proskauer permitted to Self-Represent Defendant Proskauer before this Court or any court, include but are not limited to,

1. Defendant Proskauer and Proskauer Partners have multiple vested Personal and Professional interests in the outcome of the Lawsuit. Interests include possible loss of all assets professionally and personally under the RICO Count and potential lengthy federal prison sentences when convicted, these conflicts make Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

2. Defendant Proskauer Partners Mashberg and Smith additionally represent themselves Pro Se in the Lawsuit, while also representing as Counsel, Proskauer their Law Firm and their Proskauer Partners, against Plaintiff, their former Intellectual Property and Business client, creating further conflicts.

3. In this Lawsuit, Defendants Proskauer and Foley initially contacted the NYAG together, with Proskauer acting as Counsel for Defendant Proskauer, a slight conflict, and Foley acting as Counsel for Defendant Foley, another slight conflict, to discuss Legal defense strategy with Monica Connell of the NYAG who represents 30+ State Defendants in these matters. The ability for Defendants Proskauer, Meltzer and Foley to interact directly with the NYAG, acting as their own Counsel to gain information relating to complaints and other sensitive date, discuss strategies against Plaintiff and influence possible Investigations regarding Iviewit Complaints filed against Proskauer and Foley with the NYAG over the last several years is ludicrous. The conflicts which act to Obstruct the NYAG from their duties to protect the public are perhaps criminal, especially where Proskauer represents as Counsel the NYAG, former NY AG Defendant Eliot Spitzer and possibly current NY AG Andrew Cuomo, creating further Conflicts, Violations of PORR, ACC and other Crimes as defined in the Amended Complaint and herein. These Conflicts make Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible, and at minimum require full Disclosure and Discovery on this specified topic of these specified parties provided to Appellant-Plaintiff Bernstein upon vacating the Order of Dismissal, which should occur immediately.

4. Plaintiff filed Disciplinary Complaints against Defendant Proskauer and Proskauer Partners Defendants Gregg M. Mashberg and Joanna F. Smith with the First Dept DDC[68] for their Conflicts before the USDC. With the Complaints not fully resolved, this creates further Conflict with their already Conflicted Self-Representation of Proskauer and Proskauer Partners and their Conflicted Pro-Se Representation. These Conflicts make Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

5. Due to the fact that the First Dept DDC & First Dept are named Defendants in this Lawsuit, NYAG Connell was to redirect new Disciplinary Complaints filed with the First Dept DDC against Defendants Proskauer, Smith and Mashberg for the Violations before the USDC to a Non-Conflicted third party to handle them, seeing the obvious Conflicts. Plaintiff had contacted Connell to work around the Conflicts in advance and Connell had agreed to move the Complaints and was seeking the appropriate party to transfer them for unbiased review. Instead, while Plaintiff was waiting docketing numbers and for Connell to find a Non-Conflicted authority to handle the Disciplinary Complaints, the First Dept DDC interceded and acted in Conflict by ruling on the Complaints, attempting to dismiss the Complaints[69] against other Defendants in the Lawsuit. Defendant First Dept DDC made Rulings on new Disciplinary Complaints while a Defendant in the same Lawsuit, acting in Conflict and while having Representative Counsel in these matters, the NYAG, whereby as Lawyers the First Dept DDC knew contact with Plaintiff should be through their Representative Counsel the NYAG only. For this brazen attempt to dismiss the Complaints for other Defendants while in Conflict and Violating ACC, PORR and Law, Plaintiff filed Disciplinary Complaints against the First Dept DDC Officers who acted in the dismissal in Violation of ACC, PORR and Law as further defined herein. These Disciplinary Complaints against the Chairman and Chief Counsel of the First Dept DDC, are still awaiting formal Docketing and Disposition and these conflicts make Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

6. Defendant Proskauer is a Shareholder of Plaintiff’s Iviewit companies conflicting them yet again as defined in the Amended Complaint, making Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

7. Defendant Proskauer and all Proskauer Partners are not only Defendants, Shareholders of Plaintiff Iviewit companies in this Lawsuit but also many are Material Fact Witnesses to events in this Lawsuit, having previously been the main Law Firm, Lawyers, Shareholders and even Board Members of the Iviewit companies. These Conflicts make Proskauer continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible. Events Proskauer will be a central Witness to, include but are not limited to,

a. Defendant Proskauer is alleged and being investigated currently for their central role in the Theft of Plaintiff’s Technologies, as defined in the Amended Complaint,

b. Defendant Proskauer and the Proskauer Intellectual Property Lawyers Licensed with the USPTO are under ONGOING Investigation by the USPTO, the USPTO OED and the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) for their central role with the direction of the filing of False and Fraudulent Intellectual Property Applications with US Government and International Agencies and more, creating further Conflict as defined in the Amended Complaint,

c. Defendant Proskauer is alleged and being investigated currently for their central role in creating at least 14 Fraudulent Iviewit Shell Companies[70] and a Fraudulent set of Intellectual Properties in false Inventors names, in order to steal Plaintiff Technologies, as defined in the Amended Complaint,

d. Defendant Proskauer is alleged and being investigated currently for their central role in a Fraudulent Bankruptcy proceeding against Iviewit companies as defined in the Amended Complaint,

e. Defendant Proskauer is alleged and being investigated currently for their central role in a Fraud on a Florida Civil Court in a Fraudulent billing lawsuit against several of the Fraudulent Iviewit Shell Companies they created, as defined in the Amended Complaint,

8. Defendants Proskauer and Rubenstein control a Patent Pooling Scheme through Defendant MPEGLA, LLC that directly competes with their former Intellectual Property client Plaintiff Bernstein’s Technologies causing Conflict and making Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

9. Defendant Proskauer Partner Matthew Triggs ( Triggs ) was confirmed by The Florida Bar to have Violated Florida Bar PORR in representing Defendants Proskauer and Proskauer Partner Wheeler in Disciplinary Complaints while Triggs was an Officer of the Florida Bar and Proskauer Partner, creating Conflict. Triggs barred from representing ANY party in ANY Complaints for a period of one year after his service with the Florida Bar, as an Officer of the Florida Bar. Triggs Violated this PORR in handling his Proskauer Partner Wheeler Bar Complaint and based on Anderson’s claims and the fact that the First Dept DDC and Florida Bar information was shared between the two agencies and influenced the decisions of the two agencies, the Triggs PORR Violations and Wheeler Bar Complaint will be appealed shortly, these Conflicts making Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

10. Additional Conflict in the Wheeler Florida Bar Complaint includes former President of the Florida Bar, Defendant Kelley Overstreet Johnson, who worked for Defendant Proskauer Partner Wheeler’s brother, Defendant James Wheeler at Defendant Law Firm Broad & Cassel creating Conflict. Johnson simultaneously handled the Wheeler Complaint at the Florida Bar while failing to disclose her Conflict with Wheeler’s brother at her firm and prevented the filing of Bar Complaints against Triggs for his CONFIRMED VIOLATION OF PORR BY THE FLORIDA BAR. Johnson prevented the Triggs complaint from formal docketing and disposition according to Law, in Violation of the US and Florida Constitution and further denying Due Process to Plaintiff. Based on Anderson’s claims, Plaintiff will be appealing the Florida court cases at the Florida Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court regarding the Bar Complaints, making Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

11. Defendant Proskauer Partner Krane acted to Obstruct Justice at the First Dept DDC uncovered in part by Defendant Wolfe who exposed that Krane was representing his firm Proskauer while an Officer of the First Dept DDC and also having other Public Office roles in the NY disciplinary system which Conflicted him, as defined in the Amended Complaint, making Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

12. Defendant Proskauer Partner Krane, acted to Obstruct Justice at the First Dept DDC which was uncovered in part by Wolfe exposing that Krane was representing his firm Proskauer while an immediate past President of the NYSBA while precluded by NYSBA Rules from representing ANY party in Disciplinary Complaint for a period of one year after Public Office service, Krane’s Violation of this PORR causes Conflict and makes Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

13. Defendant Proskauer Partner Krane’s actions in conspiracy with Defendant Cahill caused complaints against Krane, his Partner Rubenstein, the firm Proskauer, the firm Meltzer and Raymond Joao to be ordered by the First Dept court to be transferred for investigation of the Conflicts, Violations of ACC and PORR which created the Appearance of Impropriety, making Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

14. Defendant Proskauer Partner Krane’s actions in conspiracy with Defendant Cahill caused complaints against Cahill transferred for an investigative inquiry as proscribed by the PORR of the First Dept DDC and whereby at the time of the Amended Complaint, defendant Martin Gold charged with the Special Inquiry had not investigated the matters making Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

15. Defendants Proskauer, Proskauer Partners Rubenstein and Krane, Meltzer and Raymond Joao all ordered in Unpublished Orders by the First Dept for investigation for Conflicts and Appearance of Impropriety involving the Krane and Cahill Public Office Violations. Statements made in the “Legally Related” WHISTLEBLOWER Lawsuit of Anderson, by Anderson, further support Plaintiff’s claims of Public Office Corruption involving Cahill. Proskauer, Krane and Cahill’s Conflicts in the First Dept DDC and the fact that the Investigations remain incomplete makes Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

16. Yet another Conflicted Public Office Lawyer and Investigator, Defendant Diane Maxwell Kearse (Kearse) at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department (Second Dept) DDC and other members of Defendant Second Dept. then derailed the First Dept Court Ordered Investigations. Defendant Kearse refused to follow the First Dept court Orders for Investigations[71]. Kearse then refused to docket complaints against her personally and other members of the Second Dept and Second Dept DDC, all in Violation of ACC and PORR. Violating Plaintiff’s right to file complaints against civil servants, a Violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the New York and United States Constitutions. Kearse admitted to Conflict with Krane in Violation of ACC, PORR and Law and then despite repeated requests for Disclosure and Resolution of the Conflict, she continued to act on the matters attempting to dismiss the Complaints on Review in opposite the First Dept Order for “Investigation”, Kearse’s Violation of the Court Order and her Conflicts with Krane, as described in the Amended Complaint, make Proskauer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

Defendants Meltzer, Joao and Dreier Conflicts

Existing Conflicts discovered and those further created by Defendant Meltzer permitted to Self-Represent Defendant Meltzer before this Court or any court, include but are not limited to,

1. Defendant Meltzer and Meltzer Partners, including Joao and Rubenstein, have multiple vested Personal and Professional interests in the outcome of the Lawsuit. Interests include possible loss of all assets professionally and personally, under the RICO Count and potential lengthy federal prison sentences when convicted, these conflicts make Meltzer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

2. Defendant Meltzer represents as Counsel, Meltzer the Law Firm and the Defendant Meltzer Partners, against Plaintiff, their former Intellectual Property client, creating further conflicts and making Meltzer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

3. Defendant Joao, formerly of Meltzer and Defendant Proskauer Partner Rubenstein formerly of Defendant Meltzer are further Conflicted with Plaintiff, as Joao now has 90+[72] patents in his own name (while submitting fraudulent patents for Plaintiff, some with dates of 1900 and 2020 on a US Patent Application[73]) that compete with Plaintiff’s Technologies as they were learned from Disclosure by Plaintiff with Joao, causing Conflict and making Meltzer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

4. Defendant Rubenstein of Proskauer initially upon meeting Plaintiff was with Defendant Meltzer, yet Proskauer falsely represented to Plaintiff that Rubenstein was with Proskauer. Rubenstein is the sole patent evaluator and Counsel for MPEGLA LLC. who controls the Patent Pooling Scheme of Defendant MPEGLA, LLC that he formed while at Meltzer. MPEGLA, LLC now directly competes with Plaintiff’s Technologies as they were learned from Disclosure by Plaintiff with Rubenstein, causing Conflict as described further in the Amended Complaint and making Meltzer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

5. Defendant Meltzer and the Meltzer Intellectual Property Lawyers Licensed with the USPTO are under ONGOING Investigation by the USPTO, the USPTO OED and the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) for their central role in filing the False and Fraudulent Intellectual Property Applications with US Government and International Intellectual Property Agencies under the direction of Rubenstein and Proskauer, as defined further in the Amended Complaint, creating further Conflict and making Meltzer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

6. Defendant Meltzer Partners are not only Defendants in this Lawsuit but also are Material Fact Witnesses to critical events in this Lawsuit. Meltzer having previously been one of the main Intellectual Property Law Firms referred by and under the direction of Defendant Proskauer and Rubenstein on behalf of Plaintiff and the Iviewit companies to file the Intellectual Properties, this Conflict making Meltzer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

7. Defendants Proskauer, Proskauer Partners Rubenstein and Krane, Meltzer and Raymond Joao all ordered in Unpublished Orders by the First Dept for investigation for Conflicts and Appearance of Impropriety involving the Krane and Cahill Public Office Violations. Statements made in the “Legally Related” WHISTLEBLOWER Lawsuit of Anderson, by Anderson, further support Plaintiff’s claims of Public Office Corruption involving Cahill. Proskauer, Krane, Rubenstein, Meltzer, Joao and Cahill’s Conflicts in the First Dept DDC ordered for Investigation’s that remain uninvestigated, as described in the Proskauer Conflicts section above, in addition make Meltzer’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation before this Court impossible,

8. Defendant Joao’s Counsel in these matters and in the initial Disciplinary Complaint matters before the First Dept DDC, John W. Fried, was a party to the actions that led to the still pending First Dept court ordered Investigations, making Fried now a Witness in these matters and a possible future defendant. Fried’s prior actions at the First Dept DDC on behalf of Joao, include making alleged false and perjurious statements to Investigators as part of a Fraud on that Court as defined in the Amended Complaint, making Fried’s continued Conflicted Representation of Joao before this Court impossible,

Defendant Foley’s Conflicts and the Virginia Attorney General Conflicts with Foley that Conflict the Virginia Attorney General from further Representation of Defendants

Existing Conflicts discovered with Defendant Foley, include but are not limited to,

1. Defendant Foley and Foley Partners have multiple vested Personal and Professional interests in the outcome of the Lawsuit. Interests include possible loss of all assets professionally and personally under the RICO Count and potential lengthy federal prison sentences when convicted, these conflicts make Foley’s Self-Representation before the USDC a Violation of ACC,

2. Defendant Foley initially represented themselves in Conflict in these matters against former retained Intellectual Property client Plaintiff Bernstein and the Iviewit companies, making Foley’s initial Self-Representation a Violation of ACC.

3. Defendant Foley’s role as acting Counsel for the Defendants Virginia Bar, Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia Attorney General, all under the aegis of the Virginia Commonwealth cause Conflict and was discovered in a Press Release that states,

Foley & Lardner, a law firm headquartered in Washington, D.C., has been appointed by Virginia Attorney General Jerry W. Kilgore to provide legal services to the Commonwealth of Virginia and its agencies in matters of intellectual property. (Press release)[74],

The representation of the Virginia Bar, Virginia Supreme Court and the Virginia Attorney General by Foley now Conflicts the Virginia Attorney General from Representing the Defendants Virginia Bar and Virginia Supreme Court who were involved in the Disciplinary Complaint filed against Defendant Foley Partner William Dick. In fact, despite knowledge that Foley’s Representation of the Virginia Attorney General may cause Conflict in the matters before the Court, the Virginia Attorney General ignores the Conflict Disclosure Requests sent by Plaintiff and continues to submit Pleadings without first confirming if in fact the Virginia Attorney General is Conflicted. In a March 02, 2009 correspondence with Stephen Hall, Assistant Attorney General III for the Virginia Attorney General and Counsel to Defendants Virginia Bar and Virginia Supreme Court, Hall states,

I do not know if Foley has represented us in any matters or not. If the matter was completely unrelated to this matter, I am not sure it would matter. For example, if they worked for us in a case having nothing to do with the facts in your complaint, I cannot see how that would violate any ethical rule. I can check tomorrow provided that our office is open, but I am quite certain they did no work related to these facts.

In reply to this email from Hall, Plaintiff responded with the following on March 02, 2009,

One more thing Mr. Hall, it disturbs me greatly that you are just getting around to check if conflict exists when you have known about these issues for months and failed to check or even set up appropriate protections for your offices and me and continued to act in these matters. Just a wee bit late to start fact checking now when you knew the same facts several months ago and just ignored them, as your clients did with the William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner complaints filed at the Virginia Bar. For this action, I wish to levy a complaint against you with your offices and please take this entire document as the initial basis for a formal complaint of such and instantly turn these matters over to your superior. Please direct me to your direct report so that I may take any further steps necessary to request officially formal investigation of you and your offices. Thank you.

Hall fails to ever check or reply formally to date over five months and continues to submit Pleadings to this Court and whereby these Conflicts make the Virginia Attorney General’s continued Conflicted Representation before this Court impossible, until both the Conflicts and the Newly Filed Complaint against Hall are resolved,

4. In this Lawsuit, Defendants Proskauer and Foley[75] initially contacted the NYAG together, Proskauer acting as Counsel for Defendant Proskauer, a slight conflict, Foley acting as Counsel for Defendant Foley, another slight conflict, to discuss defense strategy with Monica Connell of the NYAG who represents the 30+ State Defendants in these matters. The ability for Defendants Proskauer and Foley to interact directly with the NYAG as Counsel for themselves and gain information, discuss strategy against Plaintiff and influence possible Investigations regarding Iviewit Complaints filed against Proskauer and Foley with the NYAG over the last several years is ludicrous, perhaps criminal and certainly is Conflicting, making Foley’s Self-Representation before the USDC a Violation of ACC,

5. Upon Plaintiff’s noticing the USDC that Foley was acting in Conflict and that Plaintiff filed Disciplinary Complaints with the First Dept DDC for Foley’s Conflicted Self-Representation, Foley did an immediate about face withdrawing as Self- Representing Counsel, without seeking USDC approval to replace and retain new counsel. New counsel, Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman LLP, then attempted to mislead the USDC that Foley had not acted initially as Counsel for themselves when they contacted the NYAG regarding legal strategy against Plaintiff with Proskauer, versus reporting the misconduct of Foley as required by ACC. New Counsel’s failure to report the Misconduct causes yet another Violation of ACC thereby making the integrity of Foley’s new Counsel questionable and subject to full COI Disclosure to this Court and Plaintiff prior to submission of further Pleadings on behalf of Foley. Plaintiff is formulating a complaint for this Violation of ACC against Friedman, Kaplan, Seiler & Adelman LLP for Aiding and Abetting a Fraud on the Court, as soon as the NYAG finds a Non-Conflicted third party to handle new Disciplinary Complaints against First Dept DDC licensed Lawyers.

6. Disciplinary Complaints against Defendant Foley and Foley Partners Defendants Todd C. Norbitz and Anne B. Sekel filed with the First Dept DDC[76] for their Conflicts before the USDC acting as Foley Counsel,

7. Due to the fact that the First Dept DDC & First Dept are named Defendants in this Lawsuit, NYAG Connell was to redirect new Disciplinary Complaints filed with the First Dept DDC against Defendants Foley, Norbitz and Sekel for the Violations before the USDC to a Non-Conflicted third party to handle them, seeing the obvious Conflicts. Plaintiff had contacted Connell to work around the Conflicts in advance and Connell had agreed to move the Complaints and was seeking the appropriate party to transfer them for unbiased review. Instead, while Plaintiff was waiting docketing numbers and for Connell to find a Non-Conflicted authority to handle the Disciplinary Complaints, the First Dept DDC interceded and acted in Conflict by ruling on the Foley complaints, attempting to dismiss the complaints[77] against other Defendants in the Lawsuit. Defendant First Dept DDC made rulings, on new Disciplinary Complaints, while a Defendant in the same Lawsuit, acting in Conflict and while having Representative Counsel in these matters, the NYAG, whereby as Lawyers they knew contact with Plaintiff should be through Counsel only. A brazen attempt to dismiss the Complaints for other Defendants that Plaintiff then filed Disciplinary Complaints against the First Dept DDC Officers who acted in the dismissal in Violation of ACC, PORR and Law,

8. Defendant Foley and all Foley Partners are not only Defendants in this Lawsuit but also many are Material Fact Witnesses to events in this Lawsuit creating Conflict, having previously been one of the main Law Firm’s, Intellectual Property Lawyers and even Board Members of the Iviewit companies, referred by and under the direction of Proskauer and Rubenstein. Events Foley will be a central Witness to, include but are not limited to,

a. Defendant Foley is alleged and being investigated currently for their central role in the Theft of Plaintiff’s Technologies, as defined in the Amended Complaint,

b. Defendant Foley and the Foley Intellectual Property Lawyers Licensed with the USPTO are under ONGOING Investigation by the USPTO, the USPTO OED and the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) for their central role with the filing of False and Fraudulent Intellectual Property Applications with US Government and International Agencies, as defined in the Amended Complaint.

Former IP Counsel to Plaintiff Greenberg Traurig Conflict Representing Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court

The Conflicts existing and further created by Greenberg Traurig ( Greenberg ) acting as Counsel for Defendants The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court are as follows:

1. Defense counsel for The Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court, Greenberg, previously retained by Plaintiff to investigate Patent Fraud by Defendants Proskauer, Meltzer, Foley and Others and now represents Defendants Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court against former Client Interests in directly related matters. This Conflict making Greenberg’s continued Conflicted Representation before this Court impossible, and should be immediately rectified together with the other relief requested herein.

2. Greenberg retained[78] as Counsel by Plaintiff through Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. to perform initial investigation of the allegations of Intellectual Property Fraud by Defendants Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer. The findings by Greenberg of Fraudulent Patent Applications filed at the USPTO and International IP Offices filed at the direction of Proskauer and filed by Foley and Meltzer that did not match the Intellectual Property Dockets given to Plaintiff, the Iviewit companies, Iviewit Shareholders and Investors. After completing part of Phase 1 Greenberg discovered Applications filed solely in Defendant Utley’s name that were previously unknown to the Iviewit companies and many other major inconsistencies between the official filings and the Law Firms IP Dockets, including fraudulent Inventors, Owners and Assignee’s. These findings led to Civil Legal Actions and Complaints with State, Federal and International authorities regarding the Crimes against many of the Defendants, all central to these matters. Intellectual Property Dockets prepared by Defendants Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer for Iviewit were used in raising capital, including from the SBA, Wachovia, Huizenga and Crossbow Ventures which contained false and fraudulent information compared to that on file with worldwide Intellectual Property Offices. Greenberg will therefore be a Material Witness for Plaintiff as former Counsel and now for their actions in Conflict a future Defendant and simultaneously Counsel to Defendants directly related to the matter and their former work. It behooves one to think that the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court cannot find Non-Conflicted Counsel to represent them in these matters, certainly they must know another law firm. These Conflicts of Greenberg representing Defendants against their former Client makes Greenberg’s continued Conflicted Representation before this Court impossible,

3. More recently than Greenberg Traurig’s involvement with the Jack Abramoff Scandal, Greenberg Traurig has now been implicated in the Madoff Ponzi scheme, as the lawyers for Madoff’s longtime, now defunct accountant Avellino & Bienes[79]^and[80]. Avellino & Bienes convicted by the SEC in the past and issued an,

ORDER OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND CIVIL PENALTIES ENTERED AGAINST AVELLINO & BIENES, FRANK AVELLINO AND MICHAEL BIENES. The Commission's complaint alleged that from at least 1962 to at least July 1992, the defendants sold unregistered securities to the public and from at least 1984 through November 1992, A&B, aided and abetted by Avellino and Bienes, operated as an unregistered investment company.[81]

The Commission announced that the Honorable John E. Sprizzo, District Judge for the Southern District of New York, permanently enjoined, by consent, Avellino & Bienes (A&B), Frank Avellino (Avellino) and Michael Bienes (Bienes) from further violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. A&B agreed to pay a civil penalty of $250,000 and Avellino and Bienes each agreed to pay civil penalties of $50,000. Thus, Avellino & Bienes is being implicated as the original Madoff Ponzi Scheme, as Greenberg Traurig was legal counsel for Avellino and as Madoff may have implications with these matters through Defendant Proskauer as well, further Conflict may exist that make Greenberg’s continued Conflicted Representation before this Court impossible,

4. Recently Greenberg Traurig implicated in the SFG / Stanford Ponzi scheme[82]^and[83] and their role in the creation of Stanford’s banking operations and interactions with regulators that may be questionable, this Conflict making Greenberg’s continued Conflicted Representation before this Court impossible.

Defendant New York Attorney General Conflicts Create Obstruction of Justice and Conflict discovered with Defendant NYAG being Represented by Defendant Proskauer

The Conflicts existing and further created by Defendant NYAG permitted to Self-Represent Defendant NYAG, Defendant former NY AG Spitzer and the State Defendants are as follows:

1. Defendant NYAG Self-Represents in the Amended Complaint, as they are a named Defendant in the Amended Complaint, while continuing representation of approximately 30 Defendant State Officials and Public Offices, this Conflict making the NYAG’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation and Representation for ANY Defendants before this Court impossible at this time.

2. Defendant Former Disgraced New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer had Conflicts with Defendant Proskauer who Represented the NYAG and Spitzer in Hookergate and Troopergate during the time Plaintiff filed Complaints with the NYAG. Spitzer failed to acknowledge Public Office Corruption complaints filed against Proskauer and Others by Plaintiff^{^[84]}, Complaints that resulted from the First Dept Court Ordered Investigations of Proskauer et al. NYAG Spitzer failed to acknowledge the initial Complaints while failing to disclose the NYAG / Proskauer Attorney Client relationship, this Conflict making the NYAG’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation and Representation for ANY Defendants before this Court impossible at this time.

3. Plaintiff requested the NYAG to re-investigate the initial complaints filed with their offices based on the Krane and First Dept DDC Conflicts based on the new Anderson Public Office Corruption lawsuit^{^[85]}, which wholly supported Plaintiff’s earlier allegations, while addressing the new information discovered regarding the Conflict between the NYAG and Proskauer. Plaintiff is still awaiting information regarding the Ongoing Investigation by the NYAG which creates further Conflict and possible Obstruction of Justice, as defined further herein, this Conflict making the NYAG’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation and Representation for ANY Defendants before this Court impossible at this time,

4. NY AG Andrew Cuomo replacing Spitzer, then approved Proskauer’s Legal Fee billed to the NYAG and paid for by the State of New York, for Spitzer’s Legal Representation by Proskauer in HookerGate and TrooperGate. Cuomo has initiated Investigations regarding the recently submitted request for re-investigation of the earlier Iviewit complaints, formally confirming receipt and review of the Iviewit Complaint^{^[86]}. The question remains if Proskauer remains representing the NYAG Offices and Officers and the full nature and time frame of the relationship that without full Disclosure of Conflicts by the NYAG, this unresolved Conflict makes the NYAG’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation and Representation for ANY Defendants before this Court impossible at this time,

5. The NY AG Cuomo may also have Conflict with Judge Judith Kaye due to his father’s appointment to Kaye as Chief Judge and while Scheindlin attempted to answer the question for Cuomo when Plaintiff formally requested Conflict Disclosure from Cuomo, Plaintiff demands full Disclosure from the NYAG directly regarding this and any other Conflicts that may be unknown at this time, PRIOR to any further submissions to this Court which may be tendered in Conflict and Violation of ACC, PORR and Law, this unresolved Conflict makes the NYAG’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation and Representation for ANY Defendants before this Court impossible at this time,

6. NYAG has further Conflicts in representing nearly 30+ Defendants in this Lawsuit in Public Office Corruption related charges with differing and multiple interests, including several similar defendants named in the Anderson Whistleblower Lawsuit. The Conflict created here is that the NYAG is representing State Defendants who are Defendants in Anderson’s Lawsuit, which acts to preclude the NYAG from investigating those same Defendants they are representing as counsel that on the other hand they are the Legally Obligated Public Agency to investigate the Public Office corruption alleged in Anderson against their Client Defendants. This Conflict is particularly nefarious as it creates Obstruction of Justice by preventing the NYAG from investigating their State Defendant Clients they represent as Counsel. The NYAG cannot without at minimum providing Full Disclosure and then instituting a China Wall to prevent Conflict, both represent as Counsel and Investigate as obligated by PORR, the same party. Therefore, the NYAG Public Office Legal Duties and Obligations of Investigation of Defendants First Dept, First Dept DDC, Wolfe, Cahill, etc. are Obstructed by the NYAG’s simultaneous Representation of the same Defendants. The Obstruction created acts to block both Plaintiff and Anderson from having the NYAG Public Integrity Unit responsible for investigating alleged Public Office Crimes perform their Legal Duties and Obligations to investigate on behalf of the Public. Plaintiff has recently sought from the NYAG application of New York State Public Officers Law § 17 Sec 2 (b)[87] to force individual state officers to seek independent and Non-Conflicted counsel, to remove the NYAG Conflict and Obstruction and allow the NYAG to perform their Public Office Legal Duties and Obligations. This Court should similarly force the NYAG to notify their State Defendant Clients to go get a lawyer, or upon the Court’s own motion force similar action, of course, Non-Conflicted lawyers. This unresolved Conflict that causes Obstruction of Justice makes the NYAG’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation and Representation for ANY Defendants before this Court impossible at this time and may be cause for filing of Obstruction charges against the NYAG,

1. The NYAG creates Conflict and possible Public Office Violations by having strategy sessions with multiple private Defendants, including but not limited to, Foley and Proskauer. The private Defendants acting as their own Counsel before the NYAG in strategy meetings in Violation of ACC, PORR and Law, the same Defendants who the NYAG Public Integrity and related units should be investigating for their part in the Public Office Crimes. Instead, the Defendants are working with the NYAG on Legal Defenses against Plaintiff, Anderson and the “Legally Related” Cases who are exposing the Corruption and Defendants are gaining information from the NYAG on Complaints filed with the NYAG relating to them, not only a MAJOR CONFLICT but perhaps CRIMINAL COLLUSION.

NOTE: ** “State actors” conspiring in violation of 42 USC Sec. 1983 and RICO with private defendants and individuals renders the private defendants “state actors” for liability purposes herein thus clearly rendering the Amended Complaint as having stated valid claims for federal relief and original jurisdiction by the District Court herein which should thus immediately vacate the Aug. 8, 2008 erroneous Order of Dismissal by US District Judge Scheindlin. **

7. Plaintiff has contacted the NYAG Chief of Staff Steven Cohen regarding working out the NYAG’s multiple Conflicts and Obstruction[88]and finding a possible forward path, which avoids filing of Criminal Obstruction charges with the appropriate Criminal Authorities against the NYAG, if such solution is possible. This unresolved Conflict that causes possible further Public Office Crimes makes the NYAG’s continued Conflicted Self-Representation and Representation for ANY Defendants before this Court impossible at this time and may be cause for filing of Obstruction and Other charges against the NYAG, including participation in the RICO elements of the case. The mere fact that the NYAG has not been able to respond in over a month should be sufficient proof of existing conflicts, which should have been corrected, by the District Court and the US Second Circuit prior to this stage of litigation.

This Court & USDC Conflicts Acting to Deny Plaintiff Due Process through Obstruction of Justice

1. Winter and Wolfe’s Conflicts deny Due Process and deny a stay to seek involvement of the DOJ on behalf of interests of the United States. Permitting the Law Firm and Lawyer Conflicts to continue at the US Second Circuit continues to Obstruct Justice and continues the Abuse of Process which furthers the Fraud on this Court as defined herein, that is actionable. Actionable as the Obstruction continues to Aid and Abet the underlying frauds and crimes against the rightful Iviewit Intellectual Property Interest Holders and Inventors by keeping them Covered-Up.

This Court has stated that "[w]hen a potential or actual Conflict of Interest situation arises, it is the court's duty to ensure that the attorney's client, so involved, is fully aware of the nature of the Conflict and understands the potential threat to the protection of his interests." In re Taylor, 567 F.2d 1183, 1191 (2d Cir.1977)." Because of the imminent threat of a serious conflict, disqualification would have been appropriate here even before any proceedings began. See Shadid v. Jackson, 521 F.Supp. 87, 88-90 (E.D.Tex.1981) (granting motion to disqualify in virtually identical case because of "high potential for conflicting loyalties"). Cf. Armstrong v. McAlpin, 625 F.2d 433, 444-46 (2d Cir.1980) (en banc) (disqualification appropriate when conflict will taint a trial by affecting attorney's presentation of a case), vacated on other grounds, 449 U.S. 1106, 101 S.Ct. 911, 66 L.Ed.2d 835 (1981).

As noted in Dunton, The County Attorney's multiple representation in this case was inconsistent with his professional obligation to Officer Pfeiffer. See Hafter v. Farkas, 498 F.2d 587, 589 (2d Cir.1974). It was also inconsistent with Canons 5 and 9 of the ABA Code of Professional Responsibility. A Violation of Canons 5 and 9 of the Code, which call for exercising independent judgment on behalf of a client and avoiding any Appearance of Impropriety, provides ample grounds for disqualifying an attorney. Board of Education v. Nyquist, 590 F.2d 1241, 1246 (2d Cir.1979).

As soon as the County Attorney began to undermine Officer Pfeiffer's good faith immunity defense by stating that Pfeiffer acted as an "irate husband" and not as a police officer, he was not only failing to act as a conscientious advocate for Pfeiffer, but was acting against Pfeiffer's interest. The seriousness of this conflict made disqualification appropriate. Shadid v. Jackson, 521 F.Supp. at 88-90. In holding that the trial court had a duty to inform Pfeiffer of the conflict, we in no way excuse the conduct of the other attorneys here. Attorneys are officers of the court, Clark v. United States, 289 U.S. 1, 12, 53 S.Ct. 465, 468, 77 L.Ed. 993 (1933), and are obligated to adhere to all disciplinary rules and to report incidents of which they have unprivileged knowledge involving Violations of a disciplinary rule. ABA Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 1-102(A), 1-103(A); see In re Walker, 87 A.D.2d 555, 560, 448 N.Y.S.2d 474, 479 (1st Dep't 1982) (as officers of court, attorneys required to notify parties and court of error in court order). The County Attorney had to know of the serious conflict his multiple representation created, see, e.g., App. at 1163, and knew or should have known that he could not fulfill his ethical obligations to the county without seriously undercutting Pfeiffer's legal position. The plaintiff's attorney should also have been aware of the problem and should have called it to the attention of the court. See Estates Theatres, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 345 F.Supp. 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y.1972) ("[T]hose attorneys representing other parties to the litigation were obligated to report relevant facts [regarding Conflict of Interest of opponent's attorney] to the Court ....") (citing DR 1-102).

In the Lawsuit at hand, this Court’s own Chief Clerk Wolfe has been involved in the discovery of improprieties by Proskauer attorney Krane and First Dept DDC former Chief Counsel Cahill in relation to the adjudication of complaints and grievances involving Proskauer attorneys at the First Dept DDC relating to Iviewit. Likewise, the NY AG involved in virtually the identical Conflict situation as noted in Dunton above such that Due Process and Fair proceedings would lead to admissions by multiple Public Officers of the First Dept, First Dept DDC and other State agencies also making application of the NY Public Officers Law Sec. 17 by the NYAG required at this time.

Yet, through Judge Winter, Wolfe has been part of the illegal Abuse of Process in this Court to deny a stay of proceedings to seek the involvement of the DOJ, at the same time Wolfe now scheduled to be a star witness in the “Legally Related” Anderson Lawsuit now declared by Scheindlin as involving Public Office Corruption. Again, the original Anderson complaint referenced Iviewit matters as involved in the corruption therein.

In its barest terms, Defendant Proskauer was able to commit crimes against Plaintiff, the Iviewit Shareholders and Inventors then other Proskauer attorneys, Defendants Krane and Triggs, acted to Obstruct Justice and Cover-Up the Crimes through subterfuge of the complaints at the First Dept DDC and the Florida Supreme Court, doing so in Violation of ACC, PORR and Law.

Triggs also simultaneously represented Proskauer in the Proskauer billing Lawsuit in the Labarga Civil Court in Conflict and Violation of AC, PORR and Law regarding Multiple Representations while a Bar Officer, as defined in the Amended Complaint. Labarga’s Lawsuit represents the initial Fraud on a court; a fraud that remains today being uncovered, new information being learned even recently (i.e. Anderson) as it relates to the totality of the crimes, including the fraudulent books discovered by Arthur Andersen and others, the fraudulent set of patent applications and the fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy. Further, new information shows how all frauds interrelate to the ongoing PATTERN OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR BY THE ALLEGED RICO CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE COMPOSED PRIMARILY OF LAW FIRMS, LAWYERS AND PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AIDED AND ABETTED BY ILLEGAL ABUSE OF PROCESS AND VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICES ACTING TO SUBTERFUGE LEGAL DUE PROCESS CREATING A STRANGLEHOLD ON JUSTICE IN THIS COURT BY CRIMINALS.

Defendant Proskauer and Proskauer Defendants Mashberg and Smith, now brazenly represent as Counsel Defendant Proskauer before this Court, as with the USDC as if the word Conflict has no meaning and the Court rules have no relevance. Further, Defendants Mashberg and Smith also represent Defendants Mashberg and Smith as Pro Se Counsel, Conflict that Violates virtually the entire ACC, including the fact that the newbie partners have LEGAL Duties under ACC to Report Violations of the ACC and Law committed by their Partners. All of these Conflicts continuing while Scheindlin acknowledged “substantive conflicts” and yet neither this Court nor that court act to resolve such Conflicts. The Conflicts so thick, so as to render this Court and its rulings a Joke, as further evidence of continued Fraud on the Court.

Thus;

1. Filed complaints against several Second Dept and Second Dept DDC members and Defendants remain not properly docketed and disposed of according to well-established departmental rules and need to be both docketed and investigated properly to conclusion, free of further Conflict and Obstruction.

2. The First Dept Orders for investigations of Proskauer et al. need investigation to proper conclusion, free of further Conflict, removed from the First Dept DDC and Second Dept DDC, as they are now Defendants in these matters, and cannot handle complaints against themselves. Still recently, even after service of the Original Complaint naming them as Defendants, the First Dept DDC acted in Conflict handling complaints against Cahill and other Defendants in these matters, attempting to dismiss the complaints against Defendants in these matters. The new illegal actions constitute the need for further review of all prior complaints, free of conflict and then reviewed by the non-conflicted parties; complaints filed in relation to certain of these matters already.

Violations of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law

In defining the Legal and Ethical Violations of Defendants with Legal Titles, the following JC, ACC and Law are a handful of those Violated in this Court currently, in previous courts, in Public Offices and the Disciplinary Agencies that have handled these matters since the year 2000.

Judicial Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

This Court, the District Court, the Florida Civil Court, Others named herein and in the Amended Complaint by failing to adhere to the JC, PORR, ACC and Law, have failed to uphold the integrity of the Judiciary as already defined herein and in the Amended Complaint.

Judicial Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

This Court, the USDC, Others named herein and in the Amended Complaint by failing to adhere to the JC, PORR, ACC and Law, have caused an Appearance of Impropriety by denying Due Process, creating Obstructions of Justice and committing a total Fraud on the Courts and the Disciplinary Agencies as already defined herein and in the Amended Complaint.

Judicial Canon 3. A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Impartially and Diligently

This Court, the USDC, Others named herein and in the Amended Complaint by failing to adhere to the JC, PORR, ACC and Law, have failed to perform their Legal Duties and Obligations impartially by Violating their own JC, ACC and Law and acting and allowing a myriad of Conflicts of Interest. Similarly, all Justices have failed to Regulate and/or Report their legal brethren and to report all prior Violations of JC, PORR, ACC and Law, now becoming accomplice to the RICO Conspiracy and other charges alleged herein and in the Amended Complaint.

Judicial Canon 5. A Judge Should Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities To Minimize the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Duties

This Court must now await further direction from all oversight Authorities sought to intervene by Plaintiff, including the Office of the General Counsel Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Plaintiff will shortly file Complaints against this Court for proceeding with multiple Conflicts and committing further Violations of JC, PORR, ACC and Law that combined act to Obstruct Justice casting an overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety. Continued action by this Court prior to Conflict resolution constitutes reason for further filing of complaints under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 as amended and for new complaints to Law Enforcement regarding Title 18 Violations relating to Obstruction of Justice.

This Court can take this Motion to Compel as FORMAL notice that Criminal Complaints formulated against this Court and others are forthcoming and this Court must now grant Plaintiff enough time for filing, review and decision by all oversight Authorities appealed to prior to further adjudication. Pleadings with requests for Conflict Disclosures Illegally denied response by this Court and Defendant Counsel, therefore Plaintiff demands this Court and all members of the Court, including all Attorneys of record handling these matters in anyway, immediately submit a completed “Checklist for Conflicts”[89] and Plaintiff’s COI Disclosure Form[90] in accordance with JC, ACC, PORR and Law. This Court and all others requested can print Plaintiff’s COI Disclosure Form by visiting the above referenced URL, signing and returning the COI Disclosure Form to Plaintiff, before continuing further handling the Lawsuit or Lawsuit information.

Disclosures again demanded despite whether the oversight Authorities summoned allow this Court to proceed further. All Lawyers, Law Firms, Public Officials, Court Officials or Others handling the Lawsuit must submit proper Conflict Checks as required by JC, ACC, PORR and Law, in order that Plaintiff may have Due Process rights assuring a Fair and Impartial, Conflict free forum.

Judicial Conflicts of Interest and Recusal

As a federal judge, you have the authority to resolve significant public and private disputes. Sometimes, though, a matter assigned to you may involve you or your family personally, or may affect individuals or organizations with which you have associations outside of your official duties. In these situations, if your impartiality might reasonably be questioned, you must disqualify or recuse yourself from the proceeding (the terms “disqualify” and “recuse” are commonly used interchangeably).

This Court, the USDC and all Counsel acting before this Court must disclose and address involvement in any of the Defendant organizations sued by Plaintiff, Personally or Professionally, including any Attorney or Judicial Disciplinary Organizations, Legal Associations, etc. This Court and all of its members handling these matters in any way must address any relations, Personal or Professional, to any of the hundreds of Defendants in these matters and any stocks owned or other interests in any of the named Defendants Companies or Law Firms, as required by the JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Disclosure is necessary for any affiliation or relation to any of the Law Firms or Lawyers named as Defendants, including the thousands of attorneys who work at the Law Firms sued, as well as, any relation to any Defendant named in the Amended Complaint as required by JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

Defendant Companies screened for Conflict should include all Companies’ who are licensors and licensees of Defendant MPEGLA LLC., an updated list found at the website, www.mpegla.com and more Defendant Companies can be found @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Appendix%20A/index.htm#NDALIST . Any Memberships or Affiliations to any Defendants or other unknown Conflicted parties must force recusal of anyone involved in this Lawsuit and replacement by a Non-Conflicted party, unless all parties deem such Conflicts moot. This Lawsuit is unique in that it involves a large mass of the legal community, especially in New York. Therefore, this Court and all members of this Court who are handling these matters, in order to provide a Fair and Impartial hearing, must disclose any iota of Conflict with any of the Defendants and not hide from such formal request giving the Appearance of Impropriety.

For example, Judge Winter is an alumnus of Yale University and currently is Professor (Adjunct) of Law at Yale Law School[91]. The Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint specifically points to a not so secret anymore cult, the Yale “Skull and Bones” as one of the main conspiratorial groups involved in the RICO action and where Defendant Proskauer lists as their client Yale University. This area of possible Conflict of Winter must be explored through full disclosure and any relation to Yale that Winter has must be analyzed for Conflict, as an example, it is unknown if he sits on any boards, etc. that may influence the contracting of Proskauer as Yale counsel or if he has any relations with Proskauer whatsoever. At minimum, affirmation or denial of potential Conflicts prior to further adjudication of the matters by Winter is mandatory. Winter completely avoided Disclosure even after repeated formal written request by Plaintiff who acts as Pro Se counsel with the right to Full Disclosure from Justices and Opposing Counsel handling these matters to ensure Fair and Impartial Due Process. Avoiding Disclosure, especially upon formal written request regarding “substantive” Conflicts creates an Appearance of Impropriety.

In a recent request to this Court for an Extension of Time, attached to the Motion was a COI Disclosure Form, which requested Full Conflict Disclosure by this Court and Opposing Counsel of any Conflict prior to Ruling on the Motion. Yet, somehow, this Court proceeded with the Ruling and failed to confirm or deny Conflict, again, acting outside the JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Presumably if there were no Conflict, this Court would sign the requested Conflict Disclosure form, where failure to sign or even formally respond, again evokes an overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety. Failure to Disclose Conflict upon repeated request will also be basis for additional complaints to oversight Authorities of all Justices, Court Personnel and Opposing Counsel.

Another example of Conflict for Winter or any Justice of this Court that must be resolved prior to further Adjudication through full Conflict Disclosure would be the overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety created by Wolfe, Clerk of this Court. Wolfe, a named Defendant and a material Witness in this Lawsuit and the “Legally Related” Lawsuit of Anderson causes Conflict as already defined herein. A China Wall from here to the moon might enable this Court to continue with the Lawsuit, with the Clerk of the Court in direct Conflict. Wolfe Conflicts others at the Court who are intimate in any way with her, Personally or Professionally, yet it is unlikely at this stage in the Litigation that the Conflict can be resolved, as the China Wall and Conflict Resolution would have had to taken place first and not after the fact of Wolfe’s direct involvement.

In order for this Court to continue to act in these matters, the Court would have to remove Wolfe from any access to the Lawsuit information, including any of her subordinates and provide proof of such to Plaintiff to assure negation of the obvious Conflicts. Wolfe and her staff have already tainted this Lawsuit through reviewing documentation submitted to the Court prior to Disclosure and Resolution of the Conflicts, despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests for Full Conflict Disclosure from Wolfe and this Court. The damage to Plaintiff already done by this Court’s failure to ensure a Fair and Impartial Court by refusing written requests to this Court for Conflict Disclosure regarding Wolfe’s role and preceding as if Conflict disclosure does not apply to the Court, Court Personnel and Opposing Counsel. Plaintiff fears submitting further evidentiary information and legal strategy to a Court with such ongoing Illegal activity whereby Defendants gain access to confidential court files and pleadings, acting to Obstruct the ability of Plaintiff to properly prosecute the Amended Complaint herein and formulate legal strategy by filing with an unbiased and uncorrupted court.

Grounds for Judicial Disqualification

Disqualification is required under Canon 3C(1)(a) to (e) in several situations: you have personal knowledge of disputed facts…

Wolfe, as Defendant and as material Witness of disputed facts in these matters, definitely causes all the Justices and Clerks of this Court to come into Conflict with Plaintiff, as every member of this Court presumably has some Personal and Professional involvement with the affairs of Wolfe. Either way, Full Conflict Disclosure is required due to the obvious Appearance of Impropriety this evokes.

The Court and/or individual Judges should also disqualify under Canon 3C(1) if the circumstances would cause a reasonable person to question your impartiality.

Financial interests: financial interests that result in mandatory disqualification include — service as an officer, director, or active participant in the affairs of a party.

Most of this Court, the Law Firms and Lawyers representing the matters may also be Officers, Directors and active participants in organizations that are Defendants in these matters. Again full and proper disclosure would be the only way Plaintiff can evaluate if all involved are Conflict free with the Defendants and refusal to Disclose Conflict denies Plaintiff the right to evaluate Conflict, again creating Obstruction through Conflict and/or failure to provide proper Conflict Disclosure.

For example, holding membership, officer status and/or actively participating in the affairs of Defendants, including but not limited to, First Dept, Second Dept, the First Dept DDC, the Second Dept DDC and the NYSBA , would cause insurmountable Conflict that would have to be disclosed and resolved or negated prior to continued adjudication of the matters.

Failure by this Court upon repeated requests to disclose memberships and/or affiliations in any Defendant Organization again imparts the Appearance of Impropriety and again Violates well established JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Membership in the NYSBA of itself may not be cause to disqualify a Justice, Law Firm or Lawyer from representing these matters, the NYSBA is a named Defendant and membership that goes beyond passive membership to active participation in the Defendant Organization certainly would be cause for Full Disclosure. Full Disclosure of the relationships is necessary therefore to evaluate the potential Conflicts, without the Disclosure imparts an Appearance of Impropriety and possibly Obstruction.

Full Financial Disclosure required by all those handling this Lawsuit either affirming or denying any Financial Conflicts, including but not limited to, the Defendant Law Firms, the thousands of Lawyers in Defendant Law Firms, the hundreds of Corporations named in the Amended Complaint and the Public Agencies involved. Again, Disclosure and Conflict Checks according to well established JC, ACC, PORR and Law are mandated.

Anderson’s claims of Obstruction as defined herein support the need for immediate Conflict Checks prior to any other action by this Court or anyone involved currently or in the future of this Lawsuit. Conflict screening should most likely include Conflict Checks against all “Legally Related” Lawsuits and their defendants. All “Legally Related” Lawsuits hereby incorporated in entirety by reference herein,

Judicial Conflict Screening

The following checklists can help you create a conflicts list for monitoring purposes (See appendix): Checklist for Financial Conflicts (Form AO-300) Checklist for Other Conflicts (Form AO-301) Conflicts List (Form AO-302) also available @ http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/forms/checklist.pdf

Use and Misuse of Judicial Office — Areas of Concern

Granting access or preferential treatment to special, private groups.

This Court allows members of the legal community, including members of this Court to continue to act with total disregard to JC, ACC, PORR and Law, imparting preferential treatment to the legal community, Public Officials involved and other Defendants and may further constitute criminal Collusion in the RICO and Obstruction. Further, failing to report the misconduct of their Legal Brethren as required by JC, ACC, PORR and Law or take any corrective actions to remedy the Illegal acts again imparts preferential treatment for the legal community through Misuse and Abuse of Judicial Office and Legal Process with Scienter acting to Obstruct Justice, denying Plaintiff Due Process Rights.

Outside Activities

Your life before judicial appointment was filled with a wide variety of personal and professional activities. You may continue to participate in these activities, as long as they don’t interfere with judicial duties, cast doubt on your impartiality, or detract from your office.

To remove doubt as to this Court and its Members impartiality, with regard to Personal and Professional activities that may Conflict them, such as Disciplinary Agencies, Bar Affiliations and/or other roles within Defendant Legal Organizations, which they may or may not still be involved with they must give full disclosure. Plaintiff has Legal Rights, including those of counsel in he is represented Pro Se, to request Full Conflict Disclosure and further that Disclosure be given by all parties to remove ALL doubt. Impartiality cast in doubt without such Full Conflict Disclosure creating the Appearance of Impropriety. Plaintiff discovered previous Undisclosed Conflicts by Defendant Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials in the matters, which Scheindlin then affirmed, the First Dept confirmed and transferred for formal Investigation and Anderson supported from a Whistleblower perspective. All of these Conflicts involve Allegations that Preferential Treatment occurred for Law Firms, Lawyers and Supreme Court of New York Officials which Prejudiced Plaintiff’s Rights in ALL of the related matters. The Preferential Treatment interfered with Plaintiff’s Rights to Due Process through Obstruction and at great expense in time, money and almost loss of life in a Car Bombing.

Violations of US Code Title 18 [92]

The Chapter 73 of United States Code, Title 18 Violations relevant to these Proceedings are: section 1501 (misdemeanor to obstruct a federal process or writ server), section 1503 (felony provision that targets efforts to influence or injure a court officer or juror, as well as other obstructionary efforts), section 1505 (felony to obstruct proceedings before departments, agencies, committees)[93], section 1506 (felony to steal or alter a court record or provide a phony bail surety), section 1509 (misdemeanor to obstruct court orders), section 1510 (felony to obstruct criminal investigations), section 1512 (felony to tamper with a witness, victim, or informant) and section 1513 (felony to retaliate against a witness, victim, or informant)[94].

An example of Obstruction comes in the fact that two federal investigations of document tampering remain ongoing with no resolution in the Scheindlin federal court, pertaining to stolen documents from the US Marshals Office[95], including the Original Complaint and Copies for service improper service of Plaintiff’s Original Complaint by the United States Marshal[96]. The removal of the Original Complaints filed by Plaintiff in this Lawsuit from the US Marshal Office remains the subject of ongoing Investigations by the US Marshall and US Post Office as it Obstructed proper service to the Defendants and was a theft of original materials to the USDC. Review of the docket at the USDC evidences Defendants claiming improper service by the US Marshal and missing documentation including failure to serve copies of the Original Complaint. Prior Motions to the USDC to resolve the theft of documents and the improper service prior to beginning adjudicating the matters went wholly ignored. The outcome of the investigations with the U.S. Marshal and US Post Office may materially affect the Lawsuit including showing further continued crimes and again Scheindlin errs dismissing the complaint prior to resolution of the Obstructions of Justice caused via removal of official documents in a federal proceeding. Of course, failure to report such crimes by Scheindlin to the proper authorities again violates the JC, PORR, ACC and Law regarding Legal Obligations relating to reporting illegal activities and official misconduct rendering the claims by Plaintiff-Appellant herein ongoing and sufficient for federal relief and pleading standards under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable federal law.

For example, these new crimes have further nullified arguments of statutes of limitations etc., as the new crimes would further enforce the ongoing criminal activity of the RICO Criminal Enterprise composed of Defendant Law Firms and Others as defined in the Amended Complaint. The fact that Plaintiff cannot even be assured of what documents are making it to the Court free of Obstruction and what eventually is served Defendants by the US Marshal, is further of issue and importance and requiring action when viewed in light of the allegations of Anderson including document destruction and tampering of court documents, etc. Recent information learned in the Defendant Silicon Graphics, Inc. recent Federal Bankruptcy filing also shows that the Iviewit Original Complaint and the Amended Complaint may be still missing from the USDC files to this date[97]. This is also reason for this Court to take protective actions of all documents filed to assure their accuracy and assure accuracy of the served documents on Defendants, anything less with evidence such as this and Anderson’s claims of insider court document tampering could allow further Obstructions.

Another example, fraught with multiple Obstructions of Justice comes from the fact that in the ”Legally Related” Whistleblower Lawsuit of Anderson, Defendants allegedly used Threats, Physical Abuse, Mental Abuse, Whitewashing of Complaints and Official Document Destruction, which illegally altered the outcome of Official Court Proceedings regarding Supreme Court of New York Official Complaints. These tactics used against Anderson, a staff attorney of the First Dept DDC, in efforts to subterfuge proper administration of law to protect “Favored” law firms and attorneys, clearly acts constituting Obstruction and other Violations of ACC, PORR & Law. These Obstructive acts have derailed prior and current legal proceedings and allowed RICO stylized Public Office Corruption crimes to continue which may include Domestic Terrorism through the planting of a CAR BOMB in Plaintiff’s MiniVan. Had Obstruction not taken place, the CAR BOMBING may not have taken place, as the proverbial “onion” would have peeled at that time and Due Process would have found many Defendants in Prison. The Obstructions may also have allowed financial schemes such as Madoff, Stanford, Dreier and more to flourish, creating further damage to Victims of those crimes as already defined herein.

§ 1506. Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail

Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or otherwise avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceeding, in any court of the United States, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void, or does not take effect; or Whoever acknowledges, or procures to be acknowledged in any such court, any recognizance, bail, or judgment, in the name of any other person not privy or consenting to the same— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

§ 1509. Obstruction of court orders

Whoever, by threats or force, willfully prevents, obstructs, impedes, or interferes with, or willfully attempts to prevent, obstruct, impede, or interfere with, the due exercise of rights or the performance of duties under any order, judgment, or decree of a court of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

This Court, the USDC and the Disciplinary Agencies are all under Court Orders and Court Decrees via the JC, ACC, PORR and Law, which all act as Legal Decrees, issued by the various courts of the United States. Failure to uphold JC, ACC, PORR and Law, acts forcefully to Prevent, Obstruct, Impede and Interfere with Plaintiff’s rights to Due Process and the rights to his Intellectual Property. Failure by this Court to uphold these court orders imparts not only Obstruction but also active Culpable participation in the crimes of the larger RICO conspiracy alleged in the Amended Complaint, through knowingly continuing the Violations and Cover-Up of the prior misconducts, thereby creating an ongoing shield from prosecution for the Defendants.

§ 1510. Obstruction of criminal investigations

(a) Whoever willfully endeavors by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a Violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Anderson again provides factual evidence from an insider of Obstruction by New York State Officials. Wolfe is central to this Lawsuit and the Anderson Lawsuit who was initially a defendant in Anderson Lawsuit in her role as Clerk of the Supreme Court of New York First Dept and who is now an Officer of this Federal Court. Wolfe acting in Conflict in this Lawsuit as already defined herein, as both a Defendant and Witness who refuses direct written requests for disclosure of Conflict and whereby the Conflicts may act to Obstruct communication of information to investigators and interfere with the communication of information regarding multiple Violations of Criminal Statutes by Defendants.

Anderson evidences that Obstruction occurred through all of the following,

1. threatened and effectuated retaliatory job loss because of her refusal to change investigative reports and exposing corruption of Public Officials including her superiors at the Supreme Court of New York First Dept and First Dept DDC in typical Whistleblower fashion,

2. evidence that Public Officials, including her superiors at the Supreme Court of New York First Dept and First Dept DDC, were making changes to investigative reports to minimize investigation of favored lawyers and law firms,

3. coercion by Public Officials at the Supreme Court of New York First Dept DDC, including physical violence against Anderson by her supervisor, Sherry Cohen, to Whitewash official complaints through document destruction and file thinning and

4. favoritism by Public Officers for favored lawyers and law firms, including Illegally changing the outcome of Official Proceedings for those lawyers and law firms with political connections at the Supreme Court of New York First Dept and First Dept DDC.

All acts Violating hosts of criminal Obstruction statutes, JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Criminal investigators at minimum now should be investigating those Anderson alleges to have been involved in the Public Office Corruption as her claims indicate Criminal Obstruction and other criminal acts.

The USDC’s failure to allow Plaintiff full discovery of the Anderson Obstruction claims by dismissing the Amended Complaint through Fraudulent Rulings fraught with Conflicts of Interest, Violations of AC, JC, PORR and Law create a MASSIVE Fraud on this Court[98]. The Fraud on the Court delays this Lawsuit through further illegal Abuse of Process, adversely affecting Plaintiff’s Due Process rights, again acting as another Obstruction of Justice. This Court’s further failure not to report Scheindlin and the others for Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law and instantly correct them is yet another Violation of JC, PORR and Law. Acting to conceal prior Violations knowingly with intent puts this Court as an accessory to the RICO and other alleged crimes by further Aiding and Abetting felonious actions through continued Cover-Up in Official Court Proceedings further Violating Obstruction laws.

(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

Anderson provides evidence that certain First Dept Officials and Defendants in these matters prevented the production of records, documents and other objects in Official Court Proceedings Violating Obstruction laws and now this Court through Wolfe may be subject to similar allegations if Wolfe was planted to interfere in Conflict.

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—

Anderson provides evidence that certain First Dept Officials and Defendants in these matters used force to compel her to interfere in Official Court Proceedings at the Supreme Court of New York First Dept DDC.

(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

Anderson provides evidence that certain First Dept Officials and Defendants in these matters influenced, delayed and prevented testimony in Official Court Proceedings Violating Obstruction laws.

(B) cause or induce any person to—

(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

Anderson provides evidence that certain First Dept Officials and Defendants in these matters attempted to induce Anderson to withhold testimony, withhold records, documents and other objects from Official Court Proceedings Violating Obstruction laws.

(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;

Anderson provides evidence that certain First Dept and now this Court through Wolfe Defendants altered, destroyed, mutilated and concealed evidence with the intent to impair the integrity and the availability of such objects, in order to interfere in Official Court Proceedings and attempted to induce Anderson to do the same Violating Obstruction laws.

(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

The stolen service papers and interference with US Marshal servicing of the Original Complaint at the USDC delayed and stymied the summoning of the Defendants, including high-ranking Public Officials, to appear in Official Court Proceedings. This gave Defendants tremendous additional time to position in Conflict around Plaintiff with Conflicted counsel, etc. One example is the strategy meeting between the NYAG, Proskauer and Foley to discuss legal strategies against Plaintiff Violating Obstruction laws, ACC, PORR and Law as already defined herein.

Scheindlin precluded service of the Amended Complaint to all NAMED Defendants dismissing them Sua Sponte, yet refers in her Dismissal Order to the hundreds of Defendants summoned to Answer the Amended Complaint, knowing the other Defendants were never serviced, summoned or answered. This may be considered another act that Aided and Abetted the evasion of proper and just service of the Amended Complaint to the Defendants Scheindlin refers to in her Dismissal Order and yet another error and cause for reversal in the Dismissal Order and possible cause for Disciplinary action against Scheindlin.

(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a Violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

The Obstructions caused by this Court and all courts of the prior related proceedings has hindered, delayed and prevented communication to State, Federal and International law enforcement and judges of the United States, information relating to the commission of Federal, State and International Violations of Law and International Treatises and Violating Obstruction laws.

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

(A) in the case of murder (as defined in section 1111), the death penalty or imprisonment for life, and in the case of any other killing, the punishment provided in section 1112;

(B) in the case of—

(i) an attempt to murder; or

(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;

imprisonment for not more than 20 years; and

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a Violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—

(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(e) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, it is an affirmative defense, as to which the defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, that the conduct consisted solely of lawful conduct and that the defendant’s sole intention was to encourage, induce, or cause the other person to testify truthfully.

(f) For the purposes of this section—

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—

(1) that the official proceeding before a judge, court, magistrate judge, grand jury, or government agency is before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a Federal grand jury, or a Federal Government agency; or

(2) that the judge is a judge of the United States or that the law enforcement officer is an officer or employee of the Federal Government or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant.

(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.

(i) A prosecution under this section or section 1503 may be brought in the district in which the official proceeding (whether or not pending or about to be instituted) was intended to be affected or in the district in which the conduct constituting the alleged offense occurred.

(j) If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

§ 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes citing New York Attorney Conduct Codes[99]

Every Law Firm, Lawyer and Public Official for any Defendant should be forced to file with this Court verified and affirmed Conflict Checks, according to the ACC, PORR and Law that require Disclosure and Conflict Checks, in order to determine the validity of their Legal Representation and Disclose and Resolve all Conflicts or withdraw representation. This Court must immediately remove all Conflicted parties from any capacity in this Lawsuit; anything short of fulfillment of this request will result in immediate filings of further Disciplinary and Criminal Complaints against all parties acting in Conflict that creates Obstruction of Justice through Violations of JC, ACC and Law in the states of New York, Florida and Virginia.

Plaintiff demands these proceedings HALTED until removal of all Obstructions of Justice created by the Conflicts of the Justices, Lawyers, Law Firms and Public Officials Misconduct, and, all those found to be in Violation of JC, ACC, PORR and Law reported AS REQUIRED to the appropriate Authorities and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Misconduct by Justices, Lawyers, Law Firms and Public Officials is at the heart of both the original crimes and the Cover-Up to the crimes alleged in the Amended Complaint and herein. These continued Conflicts and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law are the glue that binds the RICO conspiracy together, shielding the Criminal Enterprise from prosecution and evidence supporting this contention further confirmed by the allegations in the “Legally Related” Whistleblower Lawsuit of Anderson and the other “Legally Related” Lawsuits or being part of the criminal enterprise itself

The “Legally Related” Lawsuits to Anderson, together with Anderson, further support that Lawyers, Law Firms and Public Officials were Violating JC, ACC, PORR and Law at the highest levels of the New York courts and public offices creating Criminal Obstruction. The very nature and evidence of this behavior now demands oversight of the courts, the Law Firms, the Lawyers and Public Officials and instant criminal investigation of the allegations of criminal Obstruction levied by Anderson and Plaintiff. Especially egregious is that upon repeated requests to the courts, Lawyers, Law Firms and Public Officials in these matters by Plaintiff for Conflict Disclosure ALL have gone wholly unanswered by any of those involved. If no Conflict exists, than why not acknowledge such upon request, whereby failure to respond to formal requests and instead continuing in the Proceedings without Full Disclosure creates an overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety.

Scheindlin addressed the Conflicts as “substantive” and the First Dept ordered “investigation” of those involved in the initial Disciplinary Complaints for Conflict and the Appearance of Impropriety yet Due Process still denied, although the Conflicts were serious enough for a court ordered transfer of the Complaints by the First Dept for immediate Investigations and Federal Judge Scheindlin further verified Conflicts. Looking at the very strange Order Dated March 10, 2008 by Scheindlin concerning the multiplicity of Misconducts by the Lawyers, Law Firms, and Public Officials, whereby instead of asking Defendant Counsel if they had Conflict, Scheindlin instead answers for the Conflicted parties on their behalf, as if she were their legal counsel running the Conflict Checks for them. Scheindlin claims,

I have considered plaintiffs' request and have determined that the Attorney General does not face an improper conflict of interest in representing the State Defendants. If, however, the Attorney General concludes that an investigation of defendants is warranted, then independent counsel would be required.

Nothing could warrant an investigation more by the NYAG Public Integrity Unit, then the damning inside Whistleblower Public Office Corruption and Obstruction claims levied by Anderson against Public Officials from the First Dept DDC and First Dept. Yet, the NYAG is busy acting as Defense Counsel preparing the defense of the Public Officials they are now Legally Obligated to Investigate. The Defendant Public Officials exposed by Anderson are now represented by the NYAG, Conflicting the NYAG from their Prosecutorial Duties to ensure Public Office Integrity, as the Defendant Public Officials have retained the NYAG’s legal services first, on the taxpayer dime, leaving no one investigating the corruption, alas Obstruction. The NYAG has not begun an investigation knowing Scheindlin views Anderson as a “Whistleblower” and is advancing Anderson’s Lawsuit to trial. Instead their Legal Representation of the same Defendants Anderson exposes creates a shield from prosecution of the Defendants the NYAG is Representing creating not only Conflict but Culpable crimes in perpetuating the RICO through further Obstruction of Justice of Official Proceedings.

Despite the other logical failures, inconsistencies and conflicted portions of Judge Scheindlin’s erroneous Dismissal of August 8, 2009, Opining that the NY AG may have to Investigate in order to determine Conflict causes reversible error. Further due process violations occur by Scheindlin’s Dismissal Sua Sponte, without first having determined the outcome of the NY AG investigation wherefore Plaintiff should now be provide Discovery and Full Disclosure.

Scheindlin in her Order further errs and again acts as Counsel, this time for the NYAG in determining if they had Conflict. Scheindlin now answers Plaintiff’s Conflict Disclosure request for the NYAG, failing to demand that the NYAG fully Disclose if they had Conflict, perhaps even Conflicts Scheindlin and Plaintiff were not aware of, the reason for Conflict Checking directly with the party Disclosure is requested from. Plaintiff affirmatively asked for the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials involved, including the NYAG and the Virginia AG, to state if they had Conflict. Scheindlin usurped this request and answered on their behalf, Prejudicing and Obstructing the Legally Required Conflict Disclosure by the NYAG, shielding them from performing their Legal Obligation regarding Disclosure of Conflict in matters they represent. By answering for them, Scheindlin shields the NYAG from running Procedural Conflict Checks required under ACC, PORR and Law, Conflict Checks that could have forced China Walls to be instituted PRIOR to the NYAG handling the matters in Conflicting roles. Scheindlin’s actions again Aid and Abet the RICO Cover-Up Crimes and perhaps create further Culpable Public Office Crimes under the RICO.

Scheindlin, acting as Counsel for Defendant NYAG fails in her Order to address on the NYAG’s behalf the Conflict of Interest caused by the fact that Defendant Proskauer Represented the NYAG during the time of alleged wrongdoings and while Plaintiff’s Complaints were filed with the NYAG against Proskauer. Plaintiff complains not that the NYAG failed to investigate as insinuated by Defendants but rather that the NYAG Violated their own Procedural Rules and Regulations in evaluating, docketing and disposing of the Complaints procedurally under Law. Scheindlin was aware of this Conflict, as Plaintiff specifically requested Disclosure on this Conflict in several filed Motions regarding the NYAG Conflicts and yet her Order completely evades answering this Disclosure Request, again shielding the NYAG from making Conflict Disclosure. Scheindlin fails to seek Conflict Disclosure from the NYAG directly of this material Conflict or even check with the NYAG to assure that Proskauer no longer represented the NYAG and if there was current Conflict or Conflict at anytime. In fact, Plaintiff also pointed out to Scheindlin that several of the former NYAG Defendant Spitzer’s employees had taken positions at Proskauer immediately after the fall of Spitzer and Conflicts could again exist if the former NYAG employees were involved in the subterfuge of the Complaints filed against Proskauer et al. while at the NYAG.

These Obstructive actions of Scheindlin are part of the Judicial Complaint against her requesting oversight Authorities in these matters to determine if Scheindlin acted within her Legal Authority and further evaluate if she has Violated JC, PORR and ACC, State and Federal Laws. If Scheindlin did not act within her Legal Authority, all of her Orders instantly should be rescinded and full Investigation commenced immediately into the NYAG/Proskauer Violations, the Scheindlin Cover-Up and her failure to report the misconduct before her court, constituting a Fraud on that court. The Lawsuit should then pass immediately to a NON-CONFLICTED court, one that affirms or denies Conflicts according to well-established procedural rules, JC, ACC, PORR and Law PRIOR to taking action in the proceedings before them for further Adjudication.

Another NYAG Conflict is that they are acting as Counsel to many of the NY State Defendants, including themselves, in their Answer to the Amended Complaint, of which they are a named Defendant. The NYAG should therefore be seeking Counsel to represent their Offices and Officers at this point and having the State Defendants find new Non-Conflicted Counsel too. Further, after withdrawal of representation of the State Defendants, the NYAG should consider based on Anderson’s allegations Investigating all of those they are Representing as Counsel for VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE. Alternatively, the NYAG could seek involvement of a Grand Jury, special prosecutor or other disinterested third party to investigate the Defendants they Counsel, to investigate the NYAG on their behalf, if they cannot overcome their current Conflicts that cause Obstruction and preclude them from performing their legally obligated role to the public.

In the same Order Scheindlin acts again as Counsel for now Defendant former Chief Judge, Judith S. Kaye ( Kaye ) and the NYAG and instead of demanding Disclosure by Kaye and the NYAG in relation to Plaintiff’s request for Conflict Disclosure and Scheindlin states:

Plaintiffs also argue that it is inappropriate for the Attorney General to represent the Hon. Judith S. Kaye on the ground that Judge Kaye was appointed to the bench by the father of the current Attorney General. While the Chief Judge was appointed many years ago by the Attorney General's father, this does not create either a Conflict of Interest or an Appearance of Impropriety in permitting the current Attorney General to represent the Chief Judge in this lawsuit.

Here again Scheindlin errs as the request from Plaintiff was for Conflict disclosure from Kaye and the NYAG, disclosure of Conflicts perhaps that Scheindlin and Plaintiff did not know about, again creating a shield around Kaye and the NYAG which allows them to evade Legally Required Disclosure of Conflict.

Scheindlin next answers for the Law Firms and Lawyers that Plaintiff had requested Conflict Disclosure from, now creating a shield around the Law Firms and Lawyers that allowed them to evade Legally Required Conflict Disclosure. Instead of asking the Law Firms and Lawyers to run internal Conflict Checks as proscribed by ACC, PORR and Law, Scheindlin answers for them, Obstructing the Law Firms and Lawyers from running Conflict Checks PRIOR TO undertaking representation. Instead of forcing Conflict Checks and Full Disclosure, Scheindlin answers for them, wholly outside her authority, as if she runs the Conflict departments for the Law Firms.

In her Order, Scheindlin states:

Plaintiffs request that the Court direct the two law firm defendants to retain independent counsel on the ground that conflicts of interest prevent their attorneys from representing the firms. Plaintiffs have shown no ground for disqualifying attorneys at the defendant law firms from representing the firms.

Scheindlin failed to address in her Order the disqualifying grounds presented to her by Plaintiff regarding Defendants Proskauer and Foley’s Self-Representation before her Court and now this Court and the fact that there are ongoing Federal, State and International Investigations of the same Law Firms and Lawyers giving the Defendants vested interest in the matters they are Self-Representing. Investigations are underway by the Federal Patent Bar and the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi), of the very same Law Firms and Lawyers that the State Bar and State Disciplinary Agencies refuse to investigate, instead attempting to dismiss complaints on review. Dismissal of the Disciplinary Complaints in New York, despite ongoing Federal and International investigations at the Disciplinary Departments of the USPTO and EPO, of the same attorneys that caused suspension of Plaintiff’s Intellectual Properties by the USPTO Commissioner. Dismissal on review where the reviews and reviewers found mired in Conflicts and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Scheindlin failed to address the absolute Conflict these investigations of certain Defendant Law Firms and Lawyers posed to continued Self-Representation. Had Scheindlin not acted outside her scope of authority and answered Conflict questions for others versus asking them directly to disclose Conflict, the results from the Conflict Checks by the Law Firms and State Agencies would have precluded their Self-Representation.

Further, Defendants Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer are former counsel to Plaintiff, were board members and/or shareholders of Iviewit, further precluding their Self-Representation under ACC. Proskauer is also a founding shareholder of Iviewit companies and thus a Defendant with an interest in the Plaintiff companies Iviewit, another area of Conflict, impossible to overcome.

All of these material and factual Conflicts were overlooked by Scheindlin who prevented the NYAG, the Virginia Attorney General, Proskauer, Meltzer and Foley from having to address Conflicts by answering for them versus forcing Conflict Checks to be run according to well-established ACC, PORR and Law and allowed them to continue to act in Conflict in her court. This disregard for JC, ACC, PORR and Law, achieved by Violating Legal Duties and Obligations regarding Conflict and other Ethical Violations further act to Obstruct Justice through an incestuous orgy of unregulated Conflicts acting to deny Plaintiff Due Process.

Anderson presents Scheindlin with additional information that disqualifies Defendant Law Firms and Lawyers from Self-Representation, if they are currently or were ever involved with the First Dept. Anderson mentions Iviewit in her original complaint and claims that Obstruction of Justice and tampering with case files was ongoing at the First Dept and First Dept DDC involving Defendant Cahill and Wolfe at the time of Plaintiff’s complaints. The relationships to the “Legally Related” Anderson Lawsuit should have been a matter for formal Discovery prior to the Dismissal, a further error by Scheindlin, cause for Reversal and further filing of Obstruction charges, relating to the Legal determination and fact of Scheindlin first marking several lawsuits “Legally Related” and then dismissing them while the related lawsuit moves forward. This bizarre reversal in seven cases is in itself a logical inconsistency and example of the illegally, erroneously, and likely conflicted made sua sponte Dismissal on Aug. 8, 2008 denying due process to Plaintiff and the other “Legally Related” lawsuits.

Scheindlin, in her Prejudicial and Obstructive legal defense claiming that the Law Firms did not have Conflict, again failed to ask for formal disclosure while overlooking the fact that Defendants Proskauer, Rubenstein and Krane directly interfered in complaints against them at the First Dept. Krane handled the complaint responses while holding undisclosed and concealed positions with the First Dept and other roles throughout the Disciplinary community that precluded him from legally representing his firm Defendant Proskauer, his Proskauer Partner Rubenstein and himself in the complaints filed with the First Dept. For example, in additional to his Violations of ACC, PORR and Law at the First Dept, Krane was also former President of the NYSBA. Krane precluded, as immediate former President of the NYSBA, from handling complaints for a period of one year after service against any party and yet Krane Illegally handled the First Dept DDC Disciplinary Complaints against Proskauer, Rubenstein and himself during the exclusionary period, Violating AC, PORR, NYSBA Rules and Regulations and Law.

Further support of disqualifying grounds comes from Defendant and Plaintiff’s witness, Clerk of this Court, Wolfe and the Defendant Justices from the First Dept whose actions led to Unpublished Orders for investigation of Proskauer attorneys, FOR CONFLICT AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. Scheindlin erred further in her response attempting to exculpate the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials, acting well outside her Legal Authority when attempting to exonerate them from Conflict and allowing them to continue to submit Legal Pleadings in Conflict. Scheindlin failed to ascertain procedurally if the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials were in Conflict by asking them to comply and comport with Conflict procedures, including running formal in-house Conflict Checks. By answering on their behalf instead, outside the scope of her Legal Authority, Scheindlin Prejudices the Lawsuit and Plaintiff’s rights by creating Obstruction through Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law that act to conceal the Conflicts and further the Cover-Up. Further cause for summoning oversight Authorities and filing Criminal Complaints formulated against Scheindlin.

Finally, and in an about face from her former March 10, 2008 Order dismissing Conflicts on behalf of Defendants, Scheindlin, changes course as to the substance of the Conflict matters before her and in her March 21, 2008 Order, states Plaintiff has “substantive issues”. Yet, Scheindlin again errs and Violates JC, ACC, PORR and Law by failing to notify authorities that she is aware of “substantive issues” including “conflicts”. Failure to report the actions of those Violating the ACC, PORR and Law as Legally Mandated forces Plaintiff now to file a complaint against Scheindlin with several Oversight authorities. Plaintiff will similarly be charging this Court with similar Violations of JC, ACC and Law and filing a complaint for failing to report the Conflicts found in Scheindlin that this Court now is aware of and for further allowing the Conflicts to continue. This Court now creates further Obstruction via the same pattern of failing to adhere to JC, ACC and Law relating to reporting Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law to the proper authorities and instead allowing them to continue, perpetuating the Cover-Up.

New York First Department Rules

§603.2 Professional Misconduct Defined

Any attorney who fails to conduct himself both professionally and personally, in conformity with the standards of conduct imposed upon members of the bar as conditions for the privilege to practice law and any attorney who violates any provision of the rules of this court governing the conduct of attorneys, or with respect to conduct on or after January l, 1970, any disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as adopted by the New York State Bar Association, effective January 1, 1970, as amended, or with respect to conduct on or before December 31, 1969, any canon of the Canons of Professional Responsibility, as adopted by such bar association and effective until December 31, 1969 or with respect to conduct on or after September l, 1990, any disciplinary rule of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as jointly adopted by the Appellate Divisions of the Supreme Court, effective September l, 1990, or any of the special rules concerning court decorum, shall be guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law.

Any law firm that fails to conduct itself in conformity with the provisions of the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility pertaining to law firms shall be guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of subdivision 2 of section 90 of the Judiciary Law.

New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility

DR 1-103 [1200.4] Disclosure of Information to Authorities

A. A lawyer possessing knowledge, (1) not protected as a confidence or secret, or (2) not gained in the lawyer's capacity as a member of a bona fide lawyer assistance or similar program or committee, of a Violation of DR 1-102 [1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to another lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such Violation.

B. A lawyer possessing knowledge or evidence, not protected as a confidence or secret, concerning another lawyer or a judge shall reveal fully such knowledge or evidence upon proper request of a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon the conduct of lawyers or judges.

As defined already herein, the Justices, Lawyers and Law Firms involved in these matters have failed wholly to report the Misconduct of their legal brethren, despite their Legal Duties and Obligations to report the Misconduct. Instead, the pattern has been to have ever-increasing Conflict to cover up the prior Misconducts through continuous denial of Due Process and Procedure, in further Violation of JC, ACC, PORR and Law. For their failure to report those Violating JC, ACC, PORR and Law, charges will be forthcoming against the Justices, the Law Firms, the Lawyers and the Public Officials involved in the matters that had knowledge and/or involvement in the Cover-Up Crimes. Complaints that will include the Illegal Abuses of Process and Frauds on the Courts that continue to Obstruct Justice and further enable the Criminal Enterprise to continue operations and Illegally Convert Plaintiff’s Royalties.

DR 1-104 [1200.5] Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer and Subordinate Lawyers

A. A law firm shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that all lawyers in the firm conform to the disciplinary rules.

B. A lawyer with management responsibility in the law firm or direct supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer conforms to the disciplinary rules.

C. A law firm shall adequately supervise, as appropriate, the work of partners, associates and non-lawyers who work at the firm. The degree of supervision required is that which is reasonable under the circumstances, taking into account factors such as the experience of the person whose work is being supervised, the amount of work involved in a particular matter, and the likelihood that ethical problems might arise in the course of working on the matter.

D. A lawyer shall be responsible for a Violation of the Disciplinary Rules by another lawyer or for conduct of a non-lawyer employed or retained by or associated with the lawyer that would be a Violation of the Disciplinary Rules if engaged in by a lawyer if:

1. The lawyer orders, or directs the specific conduct, or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies it; or

2. The lawyer is a partner in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices or the non-lawyer is employed, or has supervisory authority over the other lawyer or the non-lawyer, and knows of such conduct, or in the exercise of reasonable management or supervisory authority should have known of the conduct so that reasonable remedial action could be or could have been taken at a time when its consequences could be or could have been avoided or mitigated.

E. A lawyer shall comply with these Disciplinary Rules notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

Defendant Law Firms and Supervisory Lawyers have continued to have Lawyers within their firms act in Violation of well established ACC, PORR and Law; those in Supervisory capacities who ordered these illegal activities violate this section of code. Based on Anderson’s account of events at the First Dept and First Dept DDC, Public Office Lawyers have even used coercion of those below them to force them to Violate ACC, PORR and Law. Such coercion utilized to get the desired results for “favored” Law Firms and Lawyers on Disciplinary Complaints before the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, constituting yet another complete Fraud on a Court and Violating this section of the ACC.

DR 2-110 [1200.15] Withdrawal from Employment

A. In general.

1. If permission for withdrawal from employment is required by the rules of a tribunal, a lawyer shall not withdraw from employment in a proceeding before that tribunal without its permission.

Foley & Proskauer both represented themselves as Counsel for themselves to the NYAG. The NYAG then sent a letter confirming their Self-Representation in the matters to the USDC copying them as Counsel. The NYAG then confirmed with Plaintiff that the conversation with the Law Firms and Lawyers directly related to these matters, including the fact that it was regarding a legal defense strategy against Plaintiff in these matters. Defendant Foley realized Plaintiff had filed complaints against them with the First Dept court and immediately withdrew from Self-Representation but without USDC approval. Foley failed to properly notify the USDC or seek procedural permission to withdraw. New counsel that replaced Foley then attempted to mislead the USDC[100] that Foley had not been acting as their own counsel despite the NYAG letter to Judge Scheindlin claiming the opposite, despite Proskauer acting as their own counsel as stated to the NYAG.

Proskauer unlike Foley continued to Self-Represent, as Proskauer had formally declared themselves as their own Counsel to the USDC[101] prior to learning of the new complaints filed at the Fist Dept against their Law Firm and Lawyers for the obvious Conflicts and Violations of ACC and Law their Conflicted representation created, including their conversations with the NYAG. Proskauer Counsel Defendants Mashberg and Smith now represent themselves in the Amended Complaint and before this Court as Pro Se counsel while acting as Counsel for their firm Defendant Proskauer and certain Defendant Proskauer Lawyers adding yet another level of bizarre Conflict in Violation of ACC and Law.

B. Mandatory withdrawal.

A lawyer representing a client before a tribunal, with its permission if required by its rules, shall withdraw from employment, and a lawyer representing a client in other matters shall withdraw from employment, if:

1. The lawyer knows or it is obvious that the client is bringing the legal action, conducting the defense, or asserting a position in the litigation, or is otherwise having steps taken, merely for the purpose of harassing or maliciously injuring any person.

By Violating JC, ACC, PORR and Law, and appearing before the USDC and this Court entangled in myriads of overwhelming Conflict, the Conflicted Counsel and Public Officials, in prior Pleadings to the USDC and this Court, are with Scienter conducting knowingly Illegal Legal Defenses and perpetuating a Fraud on the Courts. Defenses with baseless claims tendered in Violation of JC, ACC, PORR and Law designed to harass Plaintiff in order to cause further injury upon Plaintiff by continued Abuse of Process and Frauds on the Courts acting to Obstruct Justice.

2. The lawyer knows or it is obvious that continued employment will result in Violation of a Disciplinary Rule.

The Conflicted Justices, Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials involved in these matters are fully aware that their Conflicted representation is Violating JC, ACC, PORR, and Law, in several states and around the world, yet it is the only way they can continue to prevent prosecution and thus they knowingly continue to Violate their own Rules, Regulations and Law.

CANON 4. A Lawyer Should Preserve the Confidences and Secrets of a Client

DR 4-101 [1200.19] Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client

A. "Confidence" refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and "secret" refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the client has requested be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would be likely to be detrimental to the client.

B. Except when permitted under DR 4-101 [1200.19] (C), a lawyer shall not knowingly:

1. Reveal a confidence or secret of a client.

2. Use a confidence or secret of a client to the disadvantage of the client.

3. Use a confidence or secret of a client for the advantage of the lawyer or of a third person, unless the client consents after full disclosure.

Many of the Defendant Law Firms and Lawyers have Violated the Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of their Former Client Plaintiff Bernstein concerning his Intellectual Properties by placing certain Intellectual Properties in their own names and Other Defendants, including unknowns. As further alleged herein and in the Amended Complaint, the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials have converted Plaintiff’s royalty streams to themselves through illegal Anti Competitive acts, including patent pooling schemes, Antitrust Violations and more, to benefit them at the disadvantage of Plaintiff. Defendants have Violated the Attorney/Client Privilege, most importantly misusing Confidences and Secrets of Plaintiff relating to Invention Disclosure, which also Violates the Federal Patent Bar OED Rules and Regulations.

CANON 5. A Lawyer Should Exercise Independent Professional Judgment on Behalf of a Client

DR 5-101 [1200.20] Conflicts of Interest - Lawyer's Own Interests

A. A lawyer shall not accept or continue employment if the exercise of professional judgment on behalf of the client will be or reasonably may be affected by the lawyer’s own financial, business, property, or personal interests, unless a disinterested lawyer would believe that the representation of the client will not be adversely affected thereby and the client consents to the representation after full disclosure of the implications of the lawyer’s interest.

Violations of Judicial Cannon 5 are the crux for the continued Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials Conflict situations as the Legally Licensed Defendants acting in Conflict before this Court and other courts, all have irrefutable knowledge that their judgment on behalf of their client, themselves, is biased. Biased, as their lives depend on the outcome of the Lawsuit both financially and personally and where loss of the Lawsuit could land them with lengthy federal sentences for their crimes, far greater sentences hopefully than the recently levied lax sentence of Madoff of 150 years in prison, this crime in the Trillions far larger. The absurdity of Self-Representation in this Lawsuit where everything rests on the outcome, adversely affects the Law Firms and Lawyers ability to get sound unbiased legal advice and act in Conflict and Violation of ACC, PORR and Law.

This Court should take note that no liability carriers are present in the Lawsuit or have counsel present to assess the potential liabilities and risk to their insurance policies and companies, including the legal liability insurance carried by the professional Defendants and Organizations. The lack of presence of insurers or their attorneys indicates that either there are no professional liability carriers insuring Defendant Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials or the Defendants failed to give proper disclosure of the risk to the carriers. If Defendant Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials failed to Disclose the impending liabilities to the carriers and instead concealed this Litigation, this would represent Insurance Fraud, Fraud that could put insurers and their shareholders at tremendous risk for portions of the Trillion Dollar plus liabilities, again far exceeding the Madoff, Stanford and Dreier schemes combined.

DR 5-102 [1200.21] Lawyers as Witnesses

A. A lawyer shall not act, or accept employment that contemplates the lawyer’s acting, as an advocate on issues of fact before any tribunal if the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer ought to be called as a witness on a significant issue on behalf of the client, except that the lawyer may act as an advocate and also testify:

1. If the testimony will relate solely to an uncontested issue.

2. If the testimony will relate solely to a matter of formality and there is no reason to believe that substantial evidence will be offered in opposition to the testimony.

3. If the testimony will relate solely to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case by the lawyer or the lawyer’s firm to the client.

4. As to any matter, if disqualification as an advocate would work a substantial hardship on the client because of the distinctive value of the lawyer as counsel in the particular case.

B. Neither a lawyer nor the lawyer’s firm shall accept employment in contemplated or pending litigation if the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the lawyer or another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm may be called as a witness on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, and it is apparent that the testimony would or might be prejudicial to the client.

C. If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that the lawyer ought to be called as a witness on a significant issue on behalf of the client, the lawyer shall not serve as an advocate on issues of fact before the tribunal, except that the lawyer may continue as an advocate on issues of fact and may testify in the circumstances enumerated in DR 5-102 [1200.21] (B)(1) through (4).

D. If, after undertaking employment in contemplated or pending litigation, a lawyer learns or it is obvious that the lawyer or a lawyer in his or her firm may be called as a witness on a significant issue other than on behalf of the client, the lawyer may continue the representation until it is apparent that the testimony is or may be prejudicial to the client at which point the lawyer and the firm must withdraw from acting as an advocate before the tribunal.

Section DR 5-102 [1200.21] prohibits from Self-Representation the Defendant Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials, including but not limited to, Foley, Meltzer, Proskauer and their Partners, as they are both Defendants and Material Witnesses for Plaintiff and both Defendants and Material Witnesses for their clients themselves in certain instances. This prohibition similarly applies to Defendant Wolfe, a Defendant and Witness for Plaintiff’s Lawsuit and applicable now to Scheindlin who will be called as a Witness for Plaintiff in relation to determining whom she referred to as having “substantive” Conflict and what “substantive issues” she found.

DR 5-103 [1200.22] Avoiding Acquisition of Interest in Litigation

A. A lawyer shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject matter of litigation he or she is conducting for a client…

Proskauer has proprietary interest in this Lawsuit, as they are shareholders of Iviewit companies stock and have vested interest in the one of the main infringers of the stolen technologies, MPEGLA LLC, as defined in the Amended Complaint. Meltzer, Proskauer and Joao also have proprietary interest in the cause of action and subject matter of the litigation in that Joao now has 90+ patents in his name allegedly filed fraudulently in relation to inventions learned through Disclosure with Plaintiff.

DR 5-104 [1200.23] Transactions Between Lawyer and Client

A. A lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client if they have differing interests therein and if the client expects the lawyer to exercise professional judgment therein for the protection of the client…

Defendant Proskauer entered into business transactions with Plaintiff and the Iviewit companies that cause Conflict, including being retained as Counsel and purchasing stock in the Iviewit companies. Proskauer then further acquired a competing interest to Plaintiff, the MPEGLA, LLC patent pooling scheme that they acquired as Client and now control through acquisition of Defendant Rubenstein from Meltzer. Rubenstein, Iviewit’s main Patent Counsel is also the sole patent evaluator, Legal Counsel and a founder of MPEGLA. Defendant MPEGLA is now one of the largest infringers of Plaintiff’s IP. Defendant Proskauer, prior to being retained by Plaintiff, had no Intellectual Property Group and immediately after learning of Plaintiff’s technologies, through disclosure to Defendants Rubenstein and Joao began an IP practice through acquisition of Meltzer’s IP Department, as more fully defined in the Amended Complaint.

1. The transaction and terms on which the lawyer acquires the interest are fair and reasonable to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing to the client in a manner that can be reasonably understood by the client;

Plaintiff asks this Court to force Proskauer to procure the transactional details of their stock purchases in the Iviewit Companies to the Court so that the Court may understand the terms, as Plaintiff and other former shareholders and former executives also would like to see the terms of their stock purchases and all transactional records relating to such[102].

DR 5-105 [1200.24] Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation

A. A lawyer shall decline proffered employment if the exercise of independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proffered employment, or if it would be likely to involve the lawyer in representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105 [1200.24] (C).

B. A lawyer shall not continue multiple employment if the exercise of independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by the lawyer's representation of another client, or if it would be likely to involve the lawyer in representing differing interests, except to the extent permitted under DR 5-105 [1200.24] (C).

C. In the situations covered by DR 5-105 [1200.24] (A) and (B), a lawyer may represent multiple clients if a disinterested lawyer would believe that the lawyer can competently represent the interest of each and if each consents to the representation after full disclosure of the implications of the simultaneous representation and the advantages and risks involved.

D. While lawyers are associated in a law firm, none of them shall knowingly accept or continue employment when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so under DR 5-101 [1200.20] (A), DR 5-105 [1200.24] (A) or (B), DR 5-108 [1200.27] (A) or (B), or DR 9-101 [1200.45] (B) except as otherwise provided therein.

E. A law firm shall keep records of prior engagements, which records shall be made at or near the time of such engagements and shall have a policy implementing a system by which proposed engagements are checked against current and previous engagements, so as to render effective assistance to lawyers within the firm in complying with DR 5-105 [1200.24] (D). Failure to keep records or to have a policy which complies with this subdivision, whether or not a Violation of DR 5-105 [1200.24] (D) occurs, shall be a Violation by the firm. In cases in which a Violation of this subdivision by the firm is a substantial factor in causing a Violation of DR 5-105 [1200.24] (D) by a lawyer, the firm, as well as the individual lawyer, shall also be responsible for the Violation of DR 5-105 [1200.24] (D).

All the Defendant Justices, Law Firms and Lawyers involved in this Lawsuit at every level, in current and former proceedings, have all failed to run proper COI Checks, which would preclude multiple Conflicting representations and would have detailed the numerous Violations of ACC and Law that Self-Representation obviously involves in this Lawsuit. New complaints will be forthcoming regarding the failure under this code section to properly screen for Conflict, serving as new grounds for disciplinary complaints. This Court’s obligation and duty is to immediately cease and halt proceedings pending full Conflict of Interest resolution according to law.

DR 5-107 [1200.26] Avoiding Influence by Others than the Client

A. Except with the consent of the client after full disclosure a lawyer shall not:

1. Accept compensation for legal services from one other than the client.

2. Accept from one other than the client anything of value related to his or her representation of or employment by the client.

B. Unless authorized by law, a lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal service for another to direct or regulate his or her professional judgment in rendering such legal services, or to cause the lawyer to compromise the lawyer's duty to maintain the confidences and secrets of the client under DR 4-101 [1200.19] (B).

DR 5-108 [1200.27] Conflict of Interest - Former Client

A. Except as provided in DR 9-101 [1200.45] (B) with respect to current or former government lawyers, a lawyer who has represented a client in a matter shall not, without the consent of the former client after full disclosure:

1. Thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client.

2. Use any confidences or secrets of the former client except as permitted by DR 4-101 [1200.19] (C) or when the confidence or secret has become generally known.

B. Except with the consent of the affected client after full disclosure, a lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:

1. Whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

2. About whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by section DR 4-101 [1200.19] (B) that is material to the matter.

C. Notwithstanding the provisions of DR 5-105 [1200.24] (D), when a lawyer has terminated an association with a firm, the firm is prohibited from thereafter representing a person with interests that are materially adverse to those of a client represented by the formerly associated lawyer and not currently represented by the firm only if the law firm or any lawyer remaining in the firm has information protected by DR 4-101 [1200.19] (B) that is material to the matter, unless the affected client consents after full disclosure.

Plaintiff was a former client of Defendant Law Firms and Lawyers and has not granted permission to his former Counsel for them now to Self-Represent in these matters, against Plaintiff in matters highly related to their alleged Criminal acts while representing Plaintiff under Retainer, again constituting an obvious Conflict and Violation of ACC. Further, the Defendants who were Intellectual Property Counsel ( Proskauer firm, Meltzer firm, Joao, Foley & Lardner, Greenberg & Traurig, etc ) for myself, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Iviewit matters learned information protected under DR 4-101 [1200.19] (B) that is material to the matter and creates further conflicts which must be immediately resolved.

DR 5-109 [1200.28] Organization as Client

A. When a lawyer employed or retained by an organization is dealing with the organization's directors, officers, employees, members, shareholders or other constituents, and it appears that the organization's interests may differ from those of the constituents with whom the lawyer is dealing, the lawyer shall explain that the lawyer is the lawyer for the organization and not for any of the constituents.

B. If a lawyer for an organization knows that an officer, employee or other person associated with the organization is engaged in action, intends to act or refuses to act in a matter related to the representation that is a Violation of a legal obligation to the organization, or a Violation of law that reasonably might be imputed to the organization, and is likely to result in substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer shall proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. In determining how to proceed, the lawyer shall give due consideration to the seriousness of the Violation and its consequences, the scope and nature of the lawyer’s representation, the responsibility in the organization and the apparent motivation of the person involved, the policies of the organization concerning such matters and any other relevant considerations. Any measures taken shall be designed to minimize disruption of the organization and the risk of revealing information relating to the representation to persons outside the organization. Such measures may include, among others:

1. Asking reconsideration of the matter;

2. Advising that a separate legal opinion on the matter be sought for presentation to appropriate authority in the organization; and

3. Referring the matter to higher authority in the organization, including, if warranted by the seriousness of the matter, referral to the highest authority that can act in behalf of the organization as determined by applicable law.

C. If, despite the lawyer’s efforts in accordance with DR 5-109 [1200.28](B), the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization insists upon action, or a refusal to act, that is clearly a Violation of law and is likely to result in a substantial injury to the organization, the lawyer may resign in accordance with DR 2-110 [1200.15].

Not only did Defendant Proskauer represent Plaintiff and the Iviewit companies he founded, Defendants Proskauer brought in senior management Officers for the Iviewit companies, including under false pretenses and with false resume in the case of Defendant Utley, in order to commit the Intellectual Property crimes. In fact, Defendants Utley, Dick[103] and C. Wheeler of Proskauer, had immediately prior to working with Plaintiff companies, been found misappropriating Intellectual Property of another Florida Philanthropist and Businessman, Monte Friedkin. The circumstances surrounding that attempt at Intellectual Property Theft forced Friedkin’s business into closure in a very similar set of circumstances to that of Plaintiff. Defendants Utley, Dick and Wheeler all failed to mention these facts to the Iviewit Board of Directors and Shareholders or to put the information on their resumes. Utley boldly changing his resume claiming a false set of circumstances for his TERMINATION by Friedkin and whereby Wheeler upon referring Utley to Plaintiff failed to mention the fact that Utley was terminated and that Wheeler was also directly implicated in the Friedkin affair. The whole story of the failed prior attempt on Friedkin, later contradicted in multiple instances in Official statements of Utley, Dick and Wheeler in Depositions and Official Statements, to Courts and to State Disciplinary Agencies in Florida, New York and Virginia, as more fully defined in the Amended Complaint.

NOTE: The aforementioned allegations of Defendant lawyers having prior pattern and involvement in a similar and related Intellectual Property scheme involving Friedken and the length of actions and schemes herein exceeding 10 years were and are and remain sufficient to satisfy “continuity” pleading requirements under RICO and Plaintiff thus had adequately stated federal claims sufficient to grant federal relief and exercise federal jurisdiction and the District Court’s erroneous Dismissal must now be immediately reversed.

DR 5-110 [1200.29] Membership in Legal Service Organization

A. A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of a not-for-profit legal services organization, apart from the law firm in which the lawyer practices, notwithstanding that the organization serves persons having interests that differ from those of a client of the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, provided that the lawyer shall not knowingly participate in a decision or action of the organization:

1. If participating in the decision or action would be incompatible with the lawyer's duty of loyalty to a client under DR 5-101 through DR 5-111 [1200.20 through 1200.29]; or

2. Where the decision or action could have a material adverse effect on the representation of a client of the organization whose interests differ from those of a client of the lawyer or the lawyer's firm.

Multiple Violations of this section already defined herein and in the Amended Complaint.

CANON 6. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Competently

DR 6-101 [1200.30] Failing to Act Competently

A. A lawyer shall not:

1. Handle a legal matter which the lawyer knows or should know that he or she is not competent to handle, without associating with a lawyer who is competent to handle it.

2. Handle a legal matter without preparation adequate in the circumstances.

3. Neglect a legal matter entrusted to the lawyer.

Multiple Violations of this section already defined herein and in the Amended Complaint.

CANON 7. A Lawyer Should Represent a Client Zealously Within the Bounds of the Law

DR 7-101 [1200.32] Representing a Client Zealously

A. A lawyer shall not intentionally:

1. Fail to seek the lawful objectives of the client through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary Rules, except as provided by DR 7-101 [1200.32] 2. Fail to carry out a contract of employment entered into with a client for professional services, but the lawyer may withdraw as permitted under DR 2-110 [1200.15], DR 5-102 [1200.21], and DR 5-105 [1200.24].

3. Prejudice or damage the client during the course of the professional relationship, except as required under DR 7-102 [1200.33] (B) or as authorized by DR 2-110 [1200.15].

Multiple Violations of this section already defined herein and in the Amended Complaint.

DR 7-102 [1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law

A. In the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not:

1. File a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial, or take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when it is obvious that such action would serve merely to harass or maliciously injure another.

All of the Defendant Justices, Law Firms, Lawyers, Public Officials and now Counsel for the Defendants before this Court Violate this section by asserting false defenses in Conflict to perpetrate Fraud on the Courts through continued Violation of the JC, ACC, PORR and Law. All Justices who have allowed such Conflict-infested pleadings to prevail in Conspiracy with Defendants have delayed trials, all of these Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law acting to further harass and maliciously injure Plaintiff while destroying his life in attempts to abscond with the Technologies.

2. Knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.

Almost all of the Counsel for Defendant Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials Violate this section by asserting defenses when they are in Conflict and thus their claims and defenses are all Illegal under existing law as further Fraud on the Court.

3. Conceal or knowingly fail to disclose that which the lawyer is required by law to reveal.

Obviously, all those found in Conflict have concealed such Conflicts with Scienter until discovered years after by Plaintiff. Defendants, made aware of their legal brethrens Crimes and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law by Plaintiff, then failed to report the Crimes and Violations, further Violating JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Failure to report also includes failing to report crimes such as Fraud on the USPTO, fraud on the SBA and Fraud on the Courts.

4. Knowingly use perjured testimony or false evidence.

All of those found in Conflict have used knowingly perjured testimony and false evidence by submitting and allowing Pleadings in Conflict and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, all constituting false evidence to the courts.

5. Knowingly make a false statement of law or fact.

6. Participate in the creation or preservation of evidence when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the evidence is false.

7. Counsel or assist the client in conduct that the lawyer knows to be illegal or fraudulent.

Conflicted Counsel retained by the Defendants assist Defendants in conduct that the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials know is both Illegal and Fraud on the Courts. Apparently, in some circumstances, acting as their own Counsel they have no representative counsel that can represent them with unbiased advice or advise them that their actions are further Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law and to GO GET A NON-CONFLICTED ATTORNEY.

8. Knowingly engage in other illegal conduct or conduct contrary to a Disciplinary Rule.

The Amended Complaint lists hundreds of Illegal acts Defendants committed with Scienter, in addition to those defined already herein, that represent conduct contrary to almost every single applicable JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

B. A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that:

1. The client has, in the course of the representation, perpetrated a fraud upon a person or tribunal shall promptly call upon the client to rectify the same, and if the client refuses or is unable to do so, the lawyer shall reveal the fraud to the affected person or tribunal, except when the information is protected as a confidence or secret.

For example, this code would force Proskauer to notify the Court and other investigators that they and their client, themselves, have committed Fraud on the Court and other crimes directly on tribunals. Again, due to the Conflicts it appears they cannot get representative counsel to give them such sound advice.

2. A person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal shall reveal the fraud to the tribunal.

This code section would force the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials involved directly in the crimes or in the Cover-Up crimes, to turn each other in to authorities for their various crimes. Again, lack of representative counsel makes this impossible and thus more and more Violations of this code occur with every Illegal Legal Action constituting further Fraud on the Courts.

DR 7-106 [1200.37] Trial Conduct

C. In appearing as a lawyer before a tribunal, a lawyer shall not:

1. State or allude to any matter that he or she has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the case or that will not be supported by admissible evidence.

The entire defenses submitted by Conflicted Counsel in these matters to this Court and the USDC are irrelevant, legally baseless and Illegal. The Pleadings submitted in Conflict will be admissible as evidence against those in Conflict who have perpetrated these Frauds on the Courts and otherwise stand as frivolous defamatory defenses. The evidence wholly does not support the Defendants’ claims of harassment by Plaintiff against them to this Court and the USDC, making their defenses wholly fraudulent and a FRAUD ON THIS COURT.

2. Ask any question that he or she has no reasonable basis to believe is relevant to the case and that is intended to degrade a witness or other person.

Counsel for Defendants, mainly the Defendants have continued to advance nonsensical defamatory attacks on Plaintiff to mislead the courts and investigators about their involvement in the Crimes, the Lawsuit, their Illegal Self-Representations and Cover-Up Crimes through continuous Conflict and Violations of AC, PORR and Law.

3. Assert personal knowledge of the facts in issue, except when testifying as a witness.

4. Assert a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, as to the credibility of a witness, as to the culpability of a civil litigant, or as to the guilt or innocence of an accused; but the lawyer may argue, upon analysis of the evidence, for any position or conclusion with respect to the matters stated herein.

5. Fail to comply with known local customs of courtesy or practice of the bar or a particular tribunal without giving to opposing counsel timely notice of the intent not to comply.

6. Engage in undignified or discourteous conduct which is degrading to a tribunal.

Undignified and discourteous conduct fails to describe the heinous crimes that have degraded the rule of law in these proceedings and the continuous Fraud on the Courts taking place through Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

7. Intentionally or habitually violate any established rule of procedure or of evidence.

Intentionally and habitually, Defendants have Violated almost every established rule of procedure and evidence as described herein and in the Amended Complaint.

DR 7-110 [1200.41] Contact with Officials

B. In an adversary proceeding, a lawyer shall not communicate, or cause another to communicate, as to the merits of the cause with a judge or an official before whom the proceeding is pending except:

1. In the course of official proceedings in the cause.

2. In writing if the lawyer promptly delivers a copy of the writing to opposing counsel or to an adverse party who is not represented by a lawyer.

3. Orally upon adequate notice to opposing counsel or to an adverse party who is not represented by a lawyer.

4. As otherwise authorized by law, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Defendant Proskauer, Foley, Meltzer and perhaps other Defendants have contacted the NYAG to discuss legal strategies against Plaintiff, where contacting Public Officials involved in the Lawsuit may be a Violation of this rule that gave Defendants the ability to infiltrate official proceedings against them.

CANON 8. A Lawyer Should Assist in Improving the Legal System

DR 8-101 [1200.42] Action as a Public Official

A. A lawyer who holds Public Office shall not:

1. Use the public position to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a special advantage in legislative matters for the lawyer or for a client under circumstances where the lawyer knows or it is obvious that such action is not in the public interest.

The handling of complaints by Defendants Proskauer, Krane and Triggs Violated PORR in positions they held in several Public Offices in both New York and Florida, in Violation of ACC and Law. Violations of the Public Offices was used to obtain special advantage in the proceedings, knowing that such actions were Violations of ACC, PORR and Law and adverse to Plaintiff and the public interest. Scheindlin’s court, and now this Court, may also be viewed misusing Public Offices to obtain special advantage for the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials by allowing Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law to prevail Illegally and further knowingly concealing the Violations of their legal brethren by failing to report the misconduct and therefore Aiding and Abetting the Defendants.

2. Use the public position to influence, or attempt to influence, a tribunal to act in favor of the lawyer or of a client.

The handling of complaints by Defendants Proskauer, Krane and Triggs, Violated PORR, ACC and Law, as they held positions with several Public Offices in New York and Florida, that precluded their handling of complaints. These Violation of ACC, PORR and Law were used to obtain special advantage in the proceedings, knowing that such actions were Violations of Law and adverse to Plaintiff and the Public’s interests. Scheindlin’s court, and this now this Court, allegedly Violating Public Offices in an attempt to further obtain special advantage for the Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials by allowing Violations of JC, ACC and Law to prevail Illegally and by further knowingly Concealing the Violations of their peers and failing to report the Misconduct.

3. Accept anything of value from any person when the lawyer knows or it is obvious that the offer is for the purpose of influencing the lawyer's action as a public official.

CANON 9. A Lawyer Should Avoid Even the Appearance of Professional Impropriety

DR 9-101 [1200.45] Avoiding Even the Appearance of Impropriety

A. A lawyer shall not accept private employment in a matter upon the merits of which the lawyer has acted in a judicial capacity.

B. Except as law may otherwise expressly permit:

1. A lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a Public Officer or employee, and no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter unless:

a. The disqualified lawyer is effectively screened from any participation, direct or indirect, including discussion, in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and

b. There are no other circumstances in the particular representation that create an Appearance of Impropriety.

2. A lawyer having information that the lawyer knows is confidential government information about a person, acquired when the lawyer was a Public Officer or employee, may not represent a private client whose interests are adverse to that person in a matter in which the information could be used to the material disadvantage of that person. A firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in the matter only if the disqualified lawyer is effectively screened from any participation, direct or indirect, including discussion, in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom.

3. A lawyer serving as a Public Officer or employee shall not:

a. Participate in a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially while in private practice or non-governmental employment, unless under applicable law no one is, or by lawful delegation may be, authorized to act in the lawyer's stead in the matter; or

b. Negotiate for private employment with any person who is involved as a party or as attorney for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially.

C. A lawyer shall not state or imply that the lawyer is able to influence improperly or upon irrelevant grounds any tribunal, legislative body, or public official.

D. A lawyer related to another lawyer as parent, child, sibling or spouse shall not represent in any matter a client whose interests differ from those of another party to the matter who the lawyer knows is represented by the other lawyer unless the client consents to the representation after full disclosure and the lawyer concludes that the lawyer can adequately represent the interests of the client.

DR 9-102 [1200.46] Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of Others; Fiduciary Responsibility; Commingling and Misappropriation of Client Funds or Property; Maintenance of Bank Accounts; Record Keeping; Examination of Records

A. Prohibition Against Commingling and Misappropriation of Client Funds or Property.

A lawyer in possession of any funds or other property belonging to another person, where such possession is incident to his or her practice of law, is a fiduciary, and must not misappropriate such funds or property or commingle such funds or property with his or her own.

3. Maintain complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client or third person coming into the possession of the lawyer and render appropriate accounts to the client or third person regarding them.

TO BE FILED COMPLAINTS

If this Court is to deny Plaintiff request to immediately halt the proceedings pending resolution of each and every Conflict, then Plaintiff asks for a 120 day extension before further having to respond to any decree of this Court to achieve all of the following with such extension also to encompass a stay of appellate proceedings and as follows:

1. formulate complaints against this Court, the USDC and Court Officials involved in this Lawsuit for allowing Conflicts, Violating JC, ACC, PORR and Law in order to Prejudice these proceedings in favor of the Defendants and causing Obstruction of Justice,

2. notify the proper oversight Authorities of failures by this Court and the USDC to notify the proper Authorities of Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law by Lawyers and Public Officials acting before the courts, as bound by JC, ACC, PORR and Law,

3. formulate complaints to have reviewed by oversight Authorities to these proceedings, to determine if this Court or the USDC can continue to act in Conflict and allow affirmed “substantive” Conflicts to persist which create an overwhelming Appearance of Impropriety that acts to Obstruct Plaintiff’s Due Process rights,

4. formulate complaints for failure of this Court and the USDC to affirm or deny Conflict when Legally requested in Plaintiff’s Pleadings based on existing Conflicts and instead moving the Lawsuit on Defendants Conflict tainted Pleadings, prior to affirmation or denial or removal of the Conflicts,

5. formulate complaints against all Defendant Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials for failing to run appropriate Conflict Checks prior to representing themselves in Conflict and failing to affirm or deny Conflict prior to handling these matters.

Continuing Failures to resolve Conflicts Violating Plaintiff’s Due process rights to fair settlement and established Civil Settlement procedures of the US Second Circuit in a Lawsuit where Documentary evidence alone is monumental

Beyond the Prejudicial Rulings of Judge Winter, Plaintiff has suffered further Prejudice due to the failure to address Conflict that adversely affects Plaintiff by denying and depriving Due Process in precluding the exercising of rights to the Second Circuit's Civil Settlement process. This denial of Due Process is particularly egregious in Plaintiff’s Lawsuit, which involves multiple Defendants under written and signed Non Disclosure Agreements and Confidentiality agreements, which call out for the economies of true justice to be available in settlement and where the Documentary evidence alone is monumental.

Yet, the US Second Circuit’s civil settlement process railroaded by the Conflicts for nine plus months into the Appeals process. Surely, Non-Conflicted counsel would view the massive financial liabilities to so many at issue, in the light that true counsel should and thus the economies of the Court deprived in failing to perform such duties.

First, Plaintiff, individually, comes to this Court with claims that this Court must remand the Lawsuit back to the USDC for further adjudication or to find a Non-Conflicted forum if the USDC cannot overcome the current Conflicts and continue adjudication. To fail to remand the Lawsuit back for adjudication to a Non-Conflicted court would be a further Obstruction of Plaintiff’s rights, limiting the Lawsuit by Preclusion/Obstruction of material facts that may reverse the prior opinions of the lower court.

Note that Conflicts and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law are the glue that binds the entire RICO Conspiracy together, keeping in play the ongoing Criminal Enterprise by precluding Due Process and Procedure. Evading prosecution for the original Crimes through a Cover-Up involving Public Office crimes and illegal Abuse of Process that perpetrates Fraud on the Courts and other crimes that all act to Aid and Abet the underlying original crimes against not only Plaintiff but also the United States, Foreign Nations and several States.

New DISCIPLINARY Complaints Filed against first dept Chairman & Chief counsel for Violations of Public Offices rules and regulations. COMPLAINTS remain pending and before the nyag Andrew Cuomo

1. Roy L. Reardon, Esq. Chairman, First Dept DDC[104], Docket number not yet received. The complaint against Reardon filed February 09, 2009, for Conflicts and Violations of ACC, PORR and Law. Filed for Reardon’s part in handling complaints filed recently against Defendants Foley, Proskauer, Smith, Mashberg, Norbitz and Sekel in this Lawsuit. Handling complaints while the First Dept and First Dept DDC are simultaneously Defendants in this Lawsuit who have representative Counsel, the NYAG causes obvious Conflict and Violations of PORR. The NYAG was to move the filed complaints from their Defendant Client First Dept DDC to a Non-Conflicted third party for investigation to avoid the obvious Conflicts and Appearance of Impropriety, for the failure to move the complaints and allowing their clients to handle complaints against other Defendants in Conflict, Plaintiff will soon file charges against the NYAG.

2. Alan W. Friedberg, Esq., Chief Counsel, First Dept DDC, Docket number not yet received. The complaint against Friedberg filed February 09, 2009[105] for Conflict and Violations of ACC, PORR and Law. Violations that resulted from the First Dept handling recently filed complaints against Defendants Foley, Proskauer, Smith, Mashberg, Norbitz & Sekel[106], while the First Dept and First Dept DDC are simultaneously Defendants in the Lawsuit and further have representative Counsel, the NYAG. Plaintiff contacted the NYAG prior to filing the complaints, to determine who was to handle the complaints to avoid obvious Conflicts with Defendants First Dept and First Dept DDC and have the complaints moved to a Non-Conflicted third party (i.e. Conflict free court, grand jury, etc.). The NYAG was to handle moving the complaints to avoid continuing Violations of ACC, PORR and Law that create the Appearance of Impropriety. Despite assurances by the NYAG that the First Dept and First Dept DDC would not handle the complaints, the First Dept DDC instead acted on the complaints attempting to dismiss the complaints in efforts to exonerate other Defendants. The Dismissal based on baseless claims, in Violation of ACC, PORR and Law.

3. Foley & Lardner – The First Dept DDC failed to formally docket & number the complaint filed against Foley according to PORR and Law. The NYAG was to have the complaints moved and handled by a Non-Conflicted third party due to the Conflicts their clients Defendants First Dept and First Dept DDC had regarding their Conflict as Defendants in the matters. The First Dept DDC instead acted in Conflict and Violation of ACC and PORR, skirting their Counsel the NYAG and attempting to dismiss Defendant Foley’s complaint directly with Plaintiff while the First Dept DDC is also a Defendant. The dismissal formally and timely appealed.

4. Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq., Proskauer Rose – The First Dept DDC failed to formally docket & number the complaint filed against Mashberg according to PORR and Law. The NYAG was to have the complaints moved and handled by a Non-Conflicted third party due to Conflicts their client Defendants First Dept and First Dept DDC had regarding their Conflict as Defendants in the matters. The First Dept DDC instead acted in Conflict and Violation of ACC and PORR, skirting their Counsel the NYAG and attempting to dismiss Defendant Mashberg’s complaint directly with Plaintiff while the First Dept DDC is also a Defendant. The dismissal formally and timely appealed.

5. Joanna F. Smith, Esq., Proskauer Rose – The First Dept DDC failed to formally docket & number the complaint filed against Smith according to PORR and Law. The NYAG was to have the complaints moved and handled by a Non-Conflicted third party due to Conflicts their client Defendants First Dept and First Dept DDC had regarding their Conflict as Defendants in the matters. The First Dept DDC instead acted in Conflict and Violation of ACC and PORR, skirting their Counsel the NYAG and attempting to dismiss Defendant Smith’s complaint directly with Plaintiff while the First Dept DDC is also a Defendant. The dismissal formally and timely appealed.

6. Todd C. Norbitz, Esq., Foley & Lardner – The First Dept DDC failed to formally docket & number the complaint filed against Norbitz according to PORR and Law. The NYAG was to have the complaints moved and handled by a Non-Conflicted third party due to Conflicts their client Defendants First Dept and First Dept DDC had regarding their Conflict as Defendants in the matters. The First Dept DDC instead acted in Conflict and Violation of ACC and PORR, skirting their Counsel the NYAG and attempting to dismiss Defendant Norbitz’s complaint directly with Plaintiff while the First Dept DDC is also a Defendant. The dismissal formally and timely appealed.

7. Anne B. Sekel, Esq. – The First Dept DDC failed to formally docket & number the complaint filed against Sekel according to PORR and Law. The NYAG was to have the complaints moved and handled by a Non-Conflicted third party due to Conflicts their client Defendants First Dept and First Dept DDC had regarding their Conflict as Defendants in the matters. The First Dept DDC instead acted in Conflict and Violation of ACC and PORR, skirting their Counsel the NYAG and attempting to dismiss Defendant Sekel’s complaint directly with Plaintiff while the First Dept DDC is also a Defendant. The dismissal formally and timely appealed.

All newly filed complaints and the Conflicted Dismissal by the First Dept DDC formally and timely appealed to the First Dept DDC and Plaintiff is waiting for further response from the First Dept DDC regarding the Appeal of the Dismissals. Until such time that final decisions can be rendered by the First Dept DDC and oversight Authorities summoned can determine if the First Dept DDC can legally be involved in the handling of Defendant Complaints while a Defendant.

PRIOR FIRST DEPT COMPLAINTS NOT RESOLVED BY DUE PROCESS AND MIRED IN CONFLICT AND FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. Thomas Cahill complaint No. 2004.1122[107] transferred for Special Inquiry to Martin Gold. Recently, it has come to the attention of Plaintiff that Defendant Gold and Quasi Plaintiff Lamont recently attempted to have Gold dismiss the Cahill complaint after years in limbo without any authorization to act on behalf of Iviewit companies in any capacity[108]. Gold, a Defendant in the Lawsuit, obviously blatantly acting in Conflict and Violation of First Dept Rules & Regulations in handling matters against Defendant Cahill which now stands as cause for yet another soon to be filed complaint, this time against Gold, Cahill and Quasi Plaintiff, soon to be defendant, Lamont. Plaintiff has notified the NYAG Andrew Cuomo’s Chief of Staff, Steven Cohen[109], of these recent attempts of Defendants dismissing Disciplinary Complaints against other Defendants and asked for investigation, or referral, to a Non-Conflicted Party to investigate the First Dept, First Dept DDC, Gold and Lamont for their actions in Violation of AC, PORR and Law.

2. Steven C. Krane / Proskauer Rose docket #2004.1883[110]. First Dept ordered investigation. Proskauer Partner Krane was also a First Dept Officer, First Dept DDC Officer, former NYSBA President & Proskauer Partner holding multiple other Public Office roles in Ethics that additionally Conflicted Krane from involvement in any matters before the First Dept and certainly matters implicating his firm Proskauer and himself. Krane found Violating ACC, PORR and Law in his representation of First Dept DDC complaints against his firm Defendant Proskauer, Proskauer Partner Rubenstein and himself while a First Dept Officer. Krane’s Illegal actions creating the Appearance of Impropriety that resulted in court ordered Investigation that never occurred due to further discovered Conflicts with Krane and the new investigator at the Second Dept DDC, Defendant Kearse. Defendant Wolfe exposing Krane’s Conflicting Official Role with the First DDC and Cahill’s attempt to Cover-Up Krane’s involvement.

3. Kenneth Rubenstein / Proskauer Rose docket #2003.0531[111]. First Dept ordered investigation. Proskauer Partner Rubenstein found Violating ACC, PORR and Law, acting in COI with Krane and creating the Appearance of Impropriety. Rubenstein also had Conflict for his representation of Plaintiff as PATENT COUNSEL, while the sole Patent Evaluator for Defendant MPEGLA, a patent pooling scheme he was central to forming. Defendant MPEGLA is now one of the largest infringers of Plaintiff’s Technologies. Rubenstein, initially representing himself as a Proskauer Partner with Defendant Joao when taking Patent disclosures and only later was it learned that both Rubenstein and Joao were from Defendant Meltzer’s law firm. Upon confronting Proskauer with the attorney misrepresentations, Proskauer immediately opened an Intellectual Property practice and moved the entire IP department of Meltzer (except Defendant Joao) to the newly formed Proskauer IP practice, except Joao who was staying behind to finish up the work at Meltzer and then was to transfer to Proskauer. The transfer never occurred as Proskauer undertook investigating initial allegations that Joao, the Attorney Proskauer brought in, was putting Plaintiff’s Intellectual Properties into his own name. Along with the transfer of the Meltzer IP department to Proskauer, Proskauer acquired the account MPEGLA, LLC and the patent pools created by and controlled by Rubenstein, a pooling scheme that directly competes with Plaintiff’s Technologies. At the time of the firm transfer, MPEGLA had inferior technologies to Plaintiff’s Technologies and Plaintiff’s Technologies could have been extinguished the pooling scheme had Plaintiff aligned with other interested parties.

4. Proskauer now directly acts in these proceedings as a competitor to Plaintiff’s Technologies and using Anti Competitive actions, including Abuse of Process, Fraud on Courts, Death Threats, Car Bombings, etc., to deny Plaintiff his Intellectual Properties. Intellectual Properties mysteriously converted to Proskauer’s new client MPEGLA in their newly formed IP department, converted to Utley, converted to Joao and unknown Others[112] that directly reaps benefits from their former client’s technologies while abusing him daily for almost a decade.

Certainly, Plaintiff and the True and Proper Inventors of the Technologies have not benefited. Inventor Plaintiff Bernstein, his wife and children have lived much of time from 2001 to present on WELFARE, forced into hiding throughout the country, fleeing home and families and friends, giving up everything, including personal possessions in order to flee dangerous situations, including from Death Threats and Car Bombings and penniless. The Court may want to pause and ask why Plaintiffs PATENT Lawyers are benefiting directly from their former Client’s Technologies, while former Counsel has forced their former Client into poverty through Illegal action after Illegal action. Then, the Court must ask why Proskauer is front and center in many of the biggest financial schemes in the country today where billions of dollars of money are vanishing into thin air. Then the Court must ask if those schemes tie to these events and perhaps constitute further Frauds, legal concocted schemes using the Courts to facilitate the Ponzi schemes as further Fraud on those courts and possible money laundering schemes? Plaintiff already alleged several Frauds on the courts in the Amended Complaint including a Federal Bankruptcy Court, a Florida Civil Court and several State Supreme Courts. As the Criminal Enterprise cloaked as Law Firms, appear to use the courts as part of their Illegal Legal Criminal Enterprise in order commit crimes and evade Prosecution.

5. Raymond A. Joao / Meltzer / Proskauer docket #2003-0352[113]. First Dept court ordered investigation. Joao found Violating ACC, PORR and Law, acting in COI and creating the Appearance of Impropriety. Joao ordered for an investigation that never occurred due to further discovered Conflicts with Defendants Krane and Kearse at the Second Dept DDC. Joao discovered putting patents into his own name directly while retained by Plaintiff and corresponding to the Inventions learned through patent disclosures with Plaintiff. Joao claims that he has 90+ patents in his name now.

6. Christopher C. Wheeler[114]

7. Matthew Triggs[115]

REMOVAL OF quasi Plaintiff P. STEPHEN LAMONT from these proceedings and all related matters and reporting his actions before this court and more to the proper authorities

As mentioned already to this Court and the USDC in prior Pleadings, Quasi Plaintiff P. Stephen Lamont has acted in knowing Violation of ACC and Law regarding representing other parties when one is not a licensed lawyer with any bar association. Lamont is aware that it may be Illegal to represent others before a Federal Court without their consent or knowledge, while at the same time not representing any personal interest in the Lawsuit, as Lamont failed to sue individually at all. Lamont, a graduate of Colombia Law with a Degree in Patent Law cannot claim ignorance of the law for these obvious Violations of ACC and Law, as stated in his own words on the www.iviewit.tv homepage,

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 from Columbia University, an M.B.A. in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering…

The law is clear! A Non-Licensed law school graduate who fails to pass or even take the bar exam ( Lamont claims he never took the exam ), cannot represent anyone but themselves in the courts. Lamont has clearly proved through his own Pleadings to this Court and the USDC that he is representing the interests of Other Plaintiffs and not himself. The fact that Lamont acts as Counsel for Others is Proved in the filing Caption of the Original Complaint, which he authored entirely, whereby it states “P. Stephen Lamont on Behalf Of…” and NEVER, P. Stephen Lamont individually, leaving him no Legal Basis, except a Fraudulent Basis in this Lawsuit. Plaintiff Inventor Bernstein represents his individual interests. Plaintiff Bernstein, since learning that representing on behalf of others, without their prior consent and a legal license, despite Lamont’s contention that this is somehow legal, notified the Court of the possible Crimes and Violations of ACC this represents and requested this Court and the USDC to withdraw his representation on behalf of anyone but himself. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated advice to Lamont regarding his Illegal Representation, Lamont has failed to file individually and still remains acting Illegally on behalf of Others in this Lawsuit and perpetrates yet another, in a long list, of Frauds on the Courts by impersonating an attorney.

Lamont claims to be representing the Iviewit companies as an Officer, in recent direct letters to Defendants in these matters such as the First Dept, Martin Gold and others, Lamont claiming he is CEO of the Iviewit companies. Once again, Lamont’s own words are his Waterloo, from the www.iviewit.tv homepage quoting Lamont,

By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former Acting CEO of Iviewit (counsel advised all Iviewit executives to resign their posts and work along side Iviewit rather than within Iviewit, as the former Board of Directors, Counsel and Accountants, disbanded without requisite notice to Shareholders in Violation of law, thereby leaving massive liability and exposure) and a significant shareholder in Iviewit.”

Yet, Lamont contacts Defendants[116] as an Iviewit Officer of an Iviewit company in New York, a previously unbeknownst Iviewit company to Plaintiff Bernstein who has no knowledge of any such company licensed in New York but with the number of illegally setup companies by certain Defendants, anything appears possible. Lamont fully aware that he has no Official role at any Iviewit companies and was terminated long ago by Plaintiff individually from employ when Plaintiff learned of possible crimes involving Lamont’s possible Fraud on this Court and the USDC created by his Illegally representing others and more. Lamont additionally was advised by Counsel of the numerous Laws, including hosts of Securities Laws he would Violate if he acted in Official capacity for Iviewit, especially without ANY Board of Director action voting him into any role with Iviewit. Yet, Lamont ignores these warnings from actual lawyers who passed the bar.

Following insanely along, Lamont recently has been contacting Defendants directly, while knowing the Defendants have retained Counsel in the Lawsuit. The NYAG represents the Defendants Lamont is contacting directly which is yet another Violation of ACC if he were a lawyer or one day when he passes the bar. The letters between Lamont and the State Defendants appear as direct Conspiratorial efforts by Lamont to subterfuge Plaintiff Bernstein’s efforts in these proceedings by creating letters of dismissal on Disciplinary Complaints that are in question in the proceedings. Letters obtained through Quasi Plaintiff Lamont contacting Defendants directly versus through Counsel the NYAG and working with the Defendants to secure Dismissal letters for other Defendants in the Lawsuit.

The crimes of Lamont acting as an Officer of a company he knows he is not an Officer of and further interfering and colluding with Defendants in these matters to derail Plaintiff Bernstein’s efforts by perpetrating yet another Fraud on this Court are reasons for new complaints with Law Enforcement and Disciplinary Agencies. A far worse crime comes from this Court’s being aware that Lamont is acting in Violation of ACC and Law regarding his actions impersonating an Attorney and Officer of a company that he is not an Officer of and yet allowing Lamont to continue to file Pleadings despite the obvious Misconduct and possible crimes this creates. This gives Plaintiff Bernstein rights to invoke the solicitation of criminal authorities regarding this Court’s further Aiding and Abetting Violations of ACC and Law by Lamont and other Defendants and the Court’s failure to Report such actions to the proper Authorities.

Plaintiff Bernstein has contacted Steven M. Cohen, Chief of Staff of NY AG Cuomo and notified him of Lamont’s attempted collusion to fix complaints with Defendants that the NYAG represents in these matters, the Conflicts and Appearance of Impropriety caused, and perhaps the criminal issues for Lamont and the First Dept DDC Officers involved. Plaintiff is to contact Cohen shortly to asses if the NYAG can continue to handle the matters and if not, whom the appropriate authority is if the NYAG cannot continue.

Oversight Sought TO REVIEW THE VIOLATIONS OF THIS COURT PERTAINING TO VIOLATIONS OF Judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes, public office rules & Regulations and law

Plaintiff will be notifying and summoning oversight from all of the following Authorities to evaluate this Court’s and the USDC’s actions and determine if Conflict without resolution can be allowed and if the Lawsuit can continue moving forward in VIOLATION of JC, ACC, PORR, State and Federal Law:

1. Plaintiff will summon the USAG, the Honorable Eric Holder, to represent Crimes alleged committed against the US Government, the USPTO, Foreign Nations and other Title 18 Crimes cited herein and in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff has previously summoned Holder regarding these matters but Holder may be busy investigating a multitude of senior ranking Government lawyers, law firms and others alleged to have Violated International War Crimes and Torture Treatises. Crimes that led to the Death of Thousands of US Troops and Millions of foreign victims, resulting from War Crimes that were created by predominately Lawyers. On the other hand, perhaps Holder is busy investigating a multitude of senior ranking Government lawyers in regulatory posts who closed their eyes allowing the economic collapse of the nation. On the other hand and we are running out of hands, law firms may be at the center and cause of massive financial crimes and Ponzi schemes actually in Cahoots with lax Regulators. Interesting to note how many lawyers leave firms to undertake a noble and unpaid job in state and federal positions and then return to the fold when discovered committing crimes or covering them up for the firms and criminals involved. Why is this rant important here you may ask? This shows that recently Lawyers at the highest level of Government, the highest levels of Law Enforcement (i.e. the CIA, the USAG and the DOJ) and the highest level of business and economic law have committed and may still be committing very serious crimes. Crimes that are Treasonous, Violate International War & Torture Treatises and hosts of other crimes and where lawyers and the legal profession are at the center, perhaps the instigator of the crimes while wholly betraying the rule of law they are beholden too and sworn to in Oath under G-d. Crimes that collaborate with Plaintiff’s contention in the Amended Complaint that the powerful and politically connected Defendant Law Firms and Lawyers[117]. Once caught, such persons seized control of the Government at the highest levels, in a coup d'état, to prevent prosecution resulting from their crimes and achieve Top down control of the Executive Branch, Courts and Justice Dept and once the fox were in the henhouse, they moved on to more and more serious and lucrative crimes. These crimes have taken our Country into a very Sad and Dark period of her history, one where Government appears ruled by criminals who Violate their own rules and then try to change the rules and laws to make their crimes “legal”. Plaintiff patiently awaits response from Holder regarding the prior summons and will petition his office again regarding the new Obstruction crimes and other crimes defined herein but with an understanding of the far more serious crimes that must be stopped first to prevent further innocent US Soldiers from being murdered by actions resulting from bad lawyers with bad legal advice,

2. US Solicitor General, The Honorable Elena Kagan, will be summoned to join the Lawsuit regarding the claims on behalf of the US Government and Foreign Nations,

3. Congressional Oversight of Judges & Justice from all appropriate Congressional Committees will be sought,

4. Plaintiff will summon US Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit – The Honorable Dennis G. Jacobs regarding the to be filed complaints regarding the Judicial Conduct of this Court and the USDC. Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, as amended, an adverse ruling by the Chief Judge Jacobs, can and will be petitioned at the Circuit Judicial Council for review if the Chief Judge dismisses the complaint or concludes the proceeding. It is now most likely necessary to transfer the Lawsuit before this Court out of the New York courts where Conflict after Conflict after Conflict remain unresolved and Obstructing Justice. There is a new rule that implements the Breyer Committee’s recommendation that some complaint proceedings should be transferred to a judicial council in a different circuit selected by the Chief Justice, for example, “where the issues are highly visible and a local disposition may weaken public confidence in the process”. It should be not that Judge Ralph K. Winter is also the Chairman of Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability and any Conflicts should be negated prior to any influence this relation can assert on that process,

5. Plaintiff will summon through Petition the United States Supreme Court to intervene in this Lawsuit and review the conduct of this Court, the USDC, the Law Firms, the Lawyers, the Public Court Officials and others. Scheindlin points the “Legally Related” Lawsuits to take up their rights regarding the corruption in the New York Courts with the Supreme Court, stating that is the only US Court that can resolve the issues of New York Public Office Corruption,

6. Plaintiff will summon the NYAG Public Integrity Unit and New York’s Attorney General the Honorable Andrew Cuomo and his Chief of Staff, Steven Michael Cohen to investigate the matters herein and in the Amended Complaint or find a suitable Non-Conflicted Investigatory Authority to replace them.

7. Plaintiff has summoned the aid of the NYAG as directed by Scheindlin in her Dismissal Order. Problems arise in Plaintiff seeking the aid of the NYAG to investigate the Public Officials and complaints against them, in that NYAG represents the State Defendants so new and old disciplinary complaints against First Dept and First Dept DDC members now must be handled through their respective counsel the NYAG, whom may have to pass the matters to a Non-Conflicted third party to investigate the complaints of the First Dept, First Dept DDC and the actions of the NYAG,

8. Plaintiff has summoned the NYAG, a named Defendant in the Amended Complaint, who now needs to seek Non-Conflicted Counsel for representation of their offices and former officers forward in these matters. The fact that the NYAG is now a Defendant in the Lawsuit creates Conflict in their continued role as Counsel for other Defendants and forces their recusal from the matters. Here again, a Non-Conflicted third party may be necessary to replace the NYAG to conduct further handling and investigation of the Public Office Corruption charges against First Dept, First Dept DDC members and NYAG members, all of whom the NYAG represents currently in response to the Amended Complaint,

9. Plaintiff has spoken recently with NYAG Cuomo’s Chief of Staff Steven Cohen, and directed several follow up letters to him regarding the mass of Conflict and attempt to resolve how to proceed forward to avoid further Obstructions of Justice caused by the Conflicts. Plaintiff requested the NYAG find an authority to replace itself or to give notice to their clients/Defendants to seek other counsel so that they may also proceed in their duties to the public to conduct Public Office Corruption probes, especially when brought by a Whistleblower. This Court must force the NYAG immediately to comply with ACC, PORR and Law, prior to any other Rulings based on their Pleadings tendered in Conflict. The Court must force the NYAG to address the issues of Conflict with their State Defendant Clients that is causing Obstruction and cease their Self-Representation of their Offices and get Counsel, immediately determining if the NYAG and the State Defendants they represent are both now in need of NON-CONFLICTED Counsel to represent them. The Court must force the NYAG to decide if it is intending on fulfilling their Public Office Duties and Legal Obligations to Protect the Public by starting immediate and thorough investigations of Anderson and the “Legally Related” lawsuits’ claims or whom the Plaintiffs should turn to investigate the Public Office Corruption when the NYAG is Conflicted,

10. Plaintiff will summon and file Complaints for all alleged Violations of ACC with the First Dept and First Dept DDC regarding the new Complaint matter discussed herein but will also compel them to find a Non-Conflicted third party to transfer ALL old and new complaints for impartial review too. Plaintiff will request from the new investigator a rehearing of all old complaints based on the Anderson revelations and other new and recent information learned about Conflicts at these Agencies,

11. Plaintiff will summon and file new Complaints with the Virginia Bar and Virginia Supreme Court, yet due to the Conflicts found with these State Agencies and Defendant Foley who acts as their attorneys, Plaintiff will ask that all new complaints and the original complaint against Defendant William (Dick) Dick be transferred for a rehearing by a Non-Conflicted party.

12. Plaintiff will summon the Virginia Supreme Court regarding filing new Complaints against the Virginia AG for his personal Conflicted involvement in this Lawsuit and the Virginia AG’s failure to address his Clients’ Defendants Virginia Bar and Virginia Supreme Court Conflicts with Foley and Lardner. Defendant Foley’s Clients being the Virginia Bar and Virginia Supreme Court all failing to address the Conflicts presented by this unique cross representation as required by ACC, PORR and Law.

13. Plaintiff will summon and file new Complaints with the Florida Bar and the Florida Supreme Court, noting the Conflict of their Counsel Greenberg in the matters before this Court, defined already herein and asking for review of the entire Florida Civil Case of Proskauer v. Iviewit and the Bar Complaints filed based on Anderson’s claims.

14. Plaintiff will summon the Office of New York State Office of the State Comptroller - Thomas P. DiNapoli. Plaintiff will file Complaints if necessary to make sure that all state New York State agencies and individuals sued in the lawsuit are properly accounting for the Trillion Dollar plus liability generated by this lawsuit to the State Agencies named as Defendants. The State Agencies have incurred liabilities and may be Violating State Accounting Laws regarding the reporting and accounting of liabilities.

15. Plaintiff will summon and file Complaints if necessary with the New York State Insurance Department - Kermitt J. Brooks, Acting Superintendent regarding filing complaints to make certain that the Law Firms, Lawyers and other Defendants in the Lawsuit have properly noticed insurance carriers and any others, including state agencies, who may have liabilities stemming from the lawsuit,

16. Plaintiff has summoned the New York Senate Judiciary through former Proskauer Rose Attorney and now New York State Senator Democratic Conference Leader, (D, WF) 19th Senate District and Chair of the Judiciary Committee, John L. Sampson. The full committee is already involved reviewing matters directly related to this Lawsuit and is holding hearings in which Anderson and the Iviewit matters slated further to testify at in September. Plaintiff will summon the Senate Judiciary Committee to review the actions of this Court and determine if it may continue to operate in Violation of the rules of the Court and other matters defined herein and in the Amended Complaint,

17. Plaintiff has summoned already the United States House and Senate Judiciary Committees – The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th) - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein and the full committees that are already involved reviewing matters directly related to this Lawsuit, to now review the actions of this Court and determine if it may continue to operate in Violation of the rules of the Court,

18. Plaintiff has already summoned but will again summon regarding new matter, the Honorable Glenn Fine - Inspector General of the Department of Justice, regarding the criminal elements of this Court’s actions complained of herein, as well as, other new crimes recently discovered in the possibly related financial crimes of Madoff, Dreier, Stanford, etc.,

19. Plaintiff has already summoned the Commissioner of Securities & Exchange Commission - Mary L. Schapiro, regarding the filing of additional Complaints against Defendants from BOTH the Original Complaint and the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed complaints with the SEC against Intel and Lockheed, to ensure that Defendants whom are required to follow Financial Accounting Standards Board ( FASB ) Rule No 5 are accounting and reporting properly in relation to liabilities. Liabilities arise for Defendants named in this Trillion Dollar Lawsuit who must report the lawsuits according to well-established accounting rules. Additional liabilities arise from the knowing and willful Intellectual Property infringement under signed agreements in many instances, for an additional Trillion Dollars or more. This liability resulting from infringement requires reporting to shareholders under FASB No. 5 from the time of infringement in 1998 forward. NOTE: Formal SEC Complaints filed by Plaintiff already referenced herein.

20. Plaintiff will summon the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding complaints relating to Obstruction of federal proceedings and other federal crimes alleged herein and complaints relating to financial crimes causing Trillions of Dollars of risk to Victims that far exceed the Madoff scandal damages directly relating to these matters. Note: See Plaintiff-Appellant Investigations Master List and related Evidentiary Links for Requests, complaints and investigations diligently and continuously initiated by Plaintiff-Appellant Bernstein via the FBI and other relevant agencies, governmental units, etc.

21. Plaintiff will summon the DOJ Antitrust Division, under the leadership of Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney regarding the Antitrust matters as stated in the Amended Complaint and the continued Antitrust & RICO Violations. Plaintiff –Appellant E.I. Bernstein previously wrote to the US Anti-Trust Division regarding MPEG[118]and[119].

22. Plaintiff will address Procedural questions to the Office of the General Counsel, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, D.C., 20544, (202-502-1100).

Halt Case Pending Oversight Review

This Court must now address the Conflicts, IMMEDIATELY AND PRIOR TO any other substantive Ruling or Order, HALTING the Lawsuit until such time that the all Conflicts removed and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law ceased. Further, this Court shall Cease Ruling on the Appeal, Brief Replies or ANY issue submitted by knowingly Conflicted Counsel and based on Conflicted and perhaps Illegal Rulings by Scheindlin tendered in Violation of JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Ultimately, the Court must strike these Illegal Pleadings and Rulings from the Record, other than as evidence of Ethical Violations and other Crimes that resulted in Criminal Obstruction and Fraud committed upon this Court with Scienter by those Violating their own Rules and Law before this Court.

This Court must HALT the Lawsuit immediately and issue no further decisions going forward while this Court is aware that Defendant Counsel and Court Personnel are acting in Conflict and Violation of JC, ACC, PORR and Law and thus must rectify the Conflicts and cease allowing Conflicted Counsel and Justices to move the Lawsuit and this Court illegally. The Court cannot LEGALLY proceed under Law knowingly Violating Law.

All prior complaints and court Lawsuits influenced by Conflict, including this Court and the USDC, need rehearing with Non-Conflicted Law Firms and Lawyers representing Defendants and Non-Conflicted Justices and Court Personnel handling and adjudicating the Lawsuit forward and reviewing prior decisions that were infected by the prior Conflicts, Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law. The Court must now HALT the proceedings until resolution from all oversight Authorities Plaintiff is summoning have time to review the overabundance of evidence regarding the alleged Abuse of Process, Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law that together constitute Fraud on this Court and determine if the Lawsuit can proceed in Violation of Law. Fraud on the Court committed by members of this Court and members of the USDC, where both courts and their members are Legally Obligated to uphold the JC, ACC, PORR and Law, will vacate all prior Pleadings, Rulings, Orders, etc. in these matters.

The Scheindlin dismissal left standing paves the way to commit Illegal Legal crimes, which sounds so illogical especially when committed by those charged with upholding Law. Defendants who have legal degrees can now use their legal powers to infiltrate the disciplinary committees, the courts and the investigatory agencies that are supposed to be investigating their actions when they are caught in crimes, handle their own complaints in Conflict and then deny Due Process through Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law. Then, through COI and Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law, they can further attempt to claim immunity while they control the legal processes to deny Due Process to extend past any Statutes of Limitations, creating a shield for themselves from prosecution to their crimes? To top that the State Defendants have their defenses paid for by the Public, as is the case in the present Lawsuit where the NYAG defends the defendant New York Public Officials and Public Agencies named in the Original Complaint, which are several of the same Public Officials as Anderson identifies as part of the “Systemic” corruption.

The NYAG representing the Public Officials despite an inside Whistleblower revealing several of the same Officials involvement in alleged Public Office Crimes, which should be absolute cause for the NYAG to represent the Public’s interests regarding the Obstruction charges leveled by Anderson against these same Public Officers. The continued representation of these Defendants by the NYAG Conflicts with the duty the NYAG has to protect the Public and this Conflict causes Obstruction blocking the ability of Plaintiff or Anderson to have investigations preformed of these Public Officials. In fact, Scheindlin upon dismissal directs the “Legally Related” Lawsuits to contact the NYAG regarding the crimes committed against them, which is ironic since they are now Conflicted in their client representations from carrying out their Public Office duties creating Obstruction of Justice to the Victims. Most astonishing is that the defense of Anderson, the Whistleblower protecting the Public Interest, paid for out of her own pocket, whilst the NYAG is busy representing the Public Office Defendants named by Anderson on Johnny Q. Public’s expense, despite the Legal Duties of the NYAG to represent and serve the People first prior to possibly corrupt Public Officials

If the internal ethical cleansing needed to restore a Conflict free Court cannot be self-imposed by this Court, on this Court, and, all those involved in the Lawsuit forced to comply with all JC, ACC, PORR and Law, then take this as OFFICIAL notice that Plaintiff is seeking immediate Oversight of this Courts’ actions. Plaintiff will file both civil and criminal Complaints against the Court as defined herein. Until oversight Authorities summoned reach their conclusions, Plaintiff refuses to continue forward in the Proceedings, which are tainted, giving illegal advantage to the Defendants. Therefore, Plaintiff will file no other pleading with this Court until such time that all demands for Justice through Conflict resolution by oversight Authorities sought are finalized and all those involved in these matters comply with JC, AC, PORR and Law. Plaintiff will not submit further submissions and/or pleadings until all Oversight Authorities have rendered final decisions on the alleged Illegal actions of this Court, the USDC, the NYAG, the Law Firms, Lawyers and Disciplinary Committees as defined further herein.

CITIZEN’s ARREST – FREEZE & SURRENDER TO AUTHORITIES

In summation, this Writ of Motion to Compel, Compelling this Court and all those involved with Professional Legal Titles to “Freeze, put your hands up in the air and surrender”. Surrender until all applicable Law Enforcement and oversight Authorities summoned can evaluate your further right to continued involvement in these matters and can determine the degree of Your culpability of which You may become a Defendant in these matters. Freeze, as this is a Citizen’s Arrest[120] and take no further action that Violates JC, ACC, PORR and Law as required by JC, ACC, PORR and Law, for a period necessary for Authorities summoned to examine the alleged Violations of JC, ACC, PORR and Law.

“You [all Justices, Court Personnel, Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Office Officials involved in the Legal Disposition of this Lawsuit] have the right to remain silent. Anything You say [or put in Order or Motion or Pleading, etc. in this Lawsuit] can and will be used against You in a court of law [a conflict free court]…Do You understand these rights?” This reading of Miranda is not a joke but more a Citizen’s Arrest notification that action on Your part forward without the summoned oversight Authorities and Law Enforcement approval of Your actions thus far and continuation going forward will be met with further CRIMINAL AND CIVIL charges against You. ANY ACTION taken prior to such time will incur filing of criminal charges against You with all appropriate authorities. Charges will include US Code Title 18 Obstruction charges, RICO charges and more, as defined herein and in the Amended Complaint and it would be best if YOU TURN YOURSELF IN TO AUTHORITIES versus forcing further rights under a Citizen’s Arrest to Force You into custody.

I remind this Court, which acts outside its own Rules, as if Above the Law, of the all too recent “Judges’ Trial[121]” of the infamous Nuremberg Trials. Proving that no one is Above the Law, not Justices, not Lawyers, nor Presidents or Deciders and that while power may corrupt and perverse those that control law at times, when the Long Arm of the Law regains its reach, the Guilty will be Tried despite their Titles and perceived Entitlement. Changing laws in order to commit crimes by those entrusted to uphold the sanctity of Law is not a defense that holds up well in a fair and impartial courtroom. Once Law and Order was re-established, the NAZI Party crushed and their delusional grandeur deflated, the Judges Trial tried the NAZI justices and lawyers who changed Law to allow Torture, Death Camps and Theft of Personal Properties, all eventually convicted in US Courts acting in Germany for the War Crimes, including for the Abuse and Misuse of Law. Above the Law while deluded in grandeur from sick Abuse of Power, yet in the end sentenced to life imprisonment for their crimes and forever stamped into history as Nazi war criminals. Eventually Justice will return to This Court and those guilty of misusing Law for personal gain to the disadvantage of citizens tried and convicted too.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, this Court Shall:

1. instantly issue Rule 11 Sanctions against Defendants and/or Defendants Counsel who have appeared in Conflict and in violation of JC, ACC, PORR and Law in the USDC and USCA lawsuit for frivolous defense pleadings and illegal conduct or alternatively grant an immediate hearing on this Motion to Compel.

2. instantly follow all JC, ACC, PORR and Law that it is Legally Obligated to follow,

3. instantly force disclosure of all parties in these matters to affirm or deny Conflict with any of the parties to this suit and to all those plaintiffs and defendants in all the “Legally Related” Lawsuits to Anderson,

4. force all Law Firms, Lawyers and Public Officials involved in this Lawsuit to run verifiable COI Checks and present the findings to Plaintiff,

5. instantly remove all Conflicted parties that this Court and Scheindlin are aware of,

6. instantly report the misconduct of all those found Violating JC, ACC, PORR and/or Law to all appropriate authorities as proscribed by JC, ACC, PORR and Law,

7. immediately HALT these proceedings until all Oversight Authorities summoned render final decisions relating to the conduct of this Court and others,

8. grant ample time for a healthy recovery of Plaintiff Bernstein from his facial reconstructive surgeries, complete teeth removal, dental replacement and a kidney stone extraction. This Court has thus far forced Plaintiff to continue on schedule, denying time for complete medical recovery according to a Medical Plan submitted to this Court, despite absolute knowledge of the health danger and risk posed for recovery of forcing Plaintiff to continue. Bernstein has been under medical treatment requiring heavy continuous pain medication, repeated surgeries and medical procedures since filing this Appeal, resulting from a life threatening infection causing the need for emergency treatment and additionally currently diagnosed with a Kidney Stone. On July 15, 2009, his dental specialist advised Bernstein that his condition was highly “unstable” and that he needed to restart treatment as soon as possible. Of course, that is impossible while SFG monies remain frozen and in some instances apparently gone.

1. grant additional time for the initially proscribed 18 months of facial reconstructive treatment now further delayed due to the SFG / Stanford Ponzi Scheme’s financial impact on Plaintiff Bernstein’s immediate family, a scheme apparently orchestrated by Defendant Proskauer. Plaintiff requests the time granted be as long as funds in the SFG matter are unrecoverable and/or other funds to continue medical treatment and found. Due to the SFG losses, Plaintiff’s dental treatments have ceased until payment can resume, leaving him in an even further unstable condition because of Defendant Proskauer.

2. appoint Pro Bono counsel to assist in the preparation of the Lawsuit so as not to further limit Plaintiff’s Due Process rights by limiting the ability to prepare this Lawsuit under duress. If this Court is further unsympathetic to Plaintiff’s extreme medical conditions, including Kidney Stones, Facial Reconstruction, Entire Teeth Removal and Implant Replacement necessary due to LIFE THREATENING infection, than Pro Bono counsel would be righteous to assist Plaintiff and if not afforded would be further evidence of Legal Process Abuse to deny Due Process and TOTALLY UNCOMPASSIONATE casting further the Appearance of Impropriety,

3. force recusal of Winter and Wolfe and force full disclosure of any Conflict they had,

4. appoint Pro Bono counsel as Plaintiff has filed suit in relation to a real New York HERO, Christine C. Anderson, in her heroic insider Whistleblower lawsuit that Scheindlin is moving to trial. Since Plaintiff files in New York in order to support such heroic efforts on behalf of the Great State of New York and its heroic citizen in efforts to rid PUBLIC OFFICE CORRUPTION, Pro Bono counsel remains appropriate and denied merely further obstructs,

5. appoint Pro Bono counsel due to the extreme financial loss caused in part by the states actors’ illegal actions outside official duties, as alleged in Anderson that acted to Obstruct Justice costing Plaintiff years and monies and the recent SFG Ponzi which froze income to Bernstein’s immediate family rendering him and his immediate family penniless. The new financial problems at SFG, caused perhaps intentionally and with malice by Defendant Proskauer and Sjoblom have rendered the ability to mount a Legal Defense nearly impossible, as feeding three children has been nearly impossible, again directly acting to Obstruct Plaintiffs Due Process rights.

6. Combined with the medical maladies Plaintiff is barely able to render submissions to this Court and whereby such stress severely is impeding and interfering with a healthy recovery. Plaintiff asks the Court to understand these financial and medical conditions, to take note that the medical narcotics and other drugs proscribed affect the ability of Plaintiff to submit documents in a coherent and timely fashion. The Court, fully aware of these situations has completely ignored Plaintiffs pleas for Compassion and Time. If Pro Bono counsel is granted for Plaintiff, as necessary to prepare a proper Lawsuit in light of the complexities and sheer number of crimes alleged and in light of the Court’s need to rush the Proceedings while fraught in Conflict, despite the medical dangers to Plaintiff, then Plaintiff requests whatever counsel is appointed be prescreened for Conflict. Any Conflict discovered resolved or negated with Plaintiff, prior to the Court’s acceptance of such Counsel.

7. Plaintiff requests the attached Brief Reply Rebuttals filed timely with the Court herein marked Confidential and SEALED, remain SEALED until such time that Oversight Authorities and Law Enforcement sought can determine if this Court can continue in Violation of JC, ACC and Law in a Judicial Capacity necessary to UNSEAL them.

8. Plaintiff requests that the SEALED Rebuttals NOT be Served on Opposing Counsel acting in Violation of JC, ACC and Law until Oversight Authorities summoned determine if they can continue to act in Conflict. Plaintiff refuses to serve Opposing Conflicted Counsel the sealed Brief Reply Rebuttal attached to this Motion to Compel, requesting the Court not Open or Serve it until such time that Counsel for all Defendants and the Court, can affirm or deny they have no Conflict through Procedural Conflict Checks. Further keeping the Brief Reply Rebuttal SEALED until all Oversight sought for prior and current actions of the Law Firms, Lawyers, Public Officials and Justices in these matters have reached conclusions regarding continued Illegal Conflicted Self-Representation and Violations of Public Offices.

9. Plaintiff asks for a minimum of 120 days to formulate complaints to all investigatory agencies, courts and more, notifying them formally of the crimes alleged herein and granting ample time for reply.

10. Immediately notify all other Courts and Investigators in the Financial Crimes described herein, which have possible relation to these matters.

11. Institute protections for document delivery and verification in light of the Obstruction already with the US Marshal Service in the USDC and in light of Anderson’s complaint illustrating a need to protect the documents from insiders who may be operating to alter and change Court pleadings and other Court documentation.

12. Force the Injunctions requested in the Amended Complaint.

13. Institute new injunctions freezing all financial transactions and distributions of funds in relation to the ongoing legal proceedings involving Madoff, Stanford, Dreier, Enron Broadband and SGI, informing those courts of the relations to this Lawsuit exposed herein. That those legal actions may be a result of the stolen Intellectual Properties from Plaintiff and may be further attempts by the all too clever criminal legal Defendants (those Defendants schooled in Law) to again misuse law to hide and redistribute stolen funds. Making the funds vanish in Ponzi and other magic schemes where Billions of Dollars go missing with recoveries paid back to so-called “victims” achieved through further Frauds on those Courts which already appear fraught with receivers in Conflict, some in Conflict with these matters and more. Also strange is how many connector dots between these events exists and how Defendants appear to be attempting to vanish with stolen goods before this Lawsuit explodes on them as Due Process is restored.

14. New Financial Schemes with Preliminary Linkage to Defendants

a. SATYAM

b. FISERV

c. Albert Hu - Aseqneua Beta Fund and Fireside LS Fund[122]

d. The 1031 Tax Group LLC - Edward H. Okun

e. SFG / Stanford - Greenberg Traurig and members of the State of Florida investigated for collusion and regulatory failures in the establishment of SFG banking businesses.

Exhibit 1 – List of COI Filings with USCA & USDC

USDC Filings

1. March 05, 2008 – USDC Letter http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Oposition%20to%20AG%20Cuomo%20letter%20email%20copy.pdf

2. March 05, 2008 – USDC Letter http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Opposition%20to%20Proskauer%20letter%20as%20counsel.pdf

3. March 10, 2008 USDC Order http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/Scheindlin%20Order%2003%2007%202008%20(2).pdf

4. March 13, 2008 USDC Letter http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/Scheindlin%20Order%2003%2007%202008%20(2).pdf

5. March 14, 2008 Plaintiff Letter to NYAG Letter http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080314%20FINAL%20Letter%20to%20NY%20AG%20to%20reistigate%20investigation%20on%20new%20evidence.pdf

6. March 21, 2008 USDC Order http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080321%20Order%20Scheindlin.pdf

7. March 28, 2008 Defendant Foley Counsel Letter http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080328%20Notice%20of%20Appearance%20Friedman%20for%20Foley.pdf

8. Plaintiff Letter to USDC regarding Greenberg Traurig Conflicts http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080401%20Motion%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20for%20Florida%20Bar%20et%20al%20filed%20Greenberg%20Traurig.pdf

9. April 09, 2008 Motion in Opposition http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080407%20FILED%20FINAL%20Motion%20in%20Opposition%20to%20Florida%20Bar.pdf

10. April 15, 2008 Plaintiff Letter to USDC re Virginia Bar and Virginia AG http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080415%20FINAL%20SENT%20TO%20COURT%20and%20Letter%20to%20Virginia%20Bar%20Counsel%20Attorney%20General%20Hall%20re%20phone%20conv.doc

11. June 04, 2008 Plaintiff Motion http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080603%20FINAL%20MOTION%20FOR%20EXTENSION%20OF%20TIME%20DUE%20TO%20EXTRANEOUS%20CIRCUMSTANCE.pdf

12. July 18, 2008 Plaintiff Letter Regarding Quasi Plaintiff Lamont http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080718%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20Opposition%20to%20Proskauer%20latter%20dated%20July%2017%202008.pdf

USCA Filings

13. January 09, 2009 Plaintiff Motion to USCA http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090129%20Final%20Extension%20of%20Time%202%20SIGNED%20low.pdf

14. February 13, 2009 Plaintiff Letter http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

15. March 02, 2009 Motion Re Emergency Investigation of Proskauer Re Madoff, etc… http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf

Attorney for Plaintiff Bernstein

Eliot Ivan Bernstein, Pro Se

2753 NW 34^th St.

Boca Raton, FL 33434

Tel.: (561) 245-8588

By: _________________________ Eliot Ivan Bernstein

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Docket No. 08-4873-cv

Bernstein

Appellate Division First Department

Disciplinary Committee

I, Eliot Ivan Bernstein, hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that on the 7th day of September, 2009, I served by United States Mail, Email, Electronic Service and/or hand delivered the document titled EMERGENCY WRIT OF MOTION TO COMPEL TO HALT PROCEEDINGS PENDING AFFIRMED CONFLICT RESOLUTION, REMOVAL OF THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AND CESSATION OF VIOLATIONS OF JUDICIAL CANNONS, ATTORNEY CODES OF CONDUCT AND LAW RESTORING ORDER TO THIS COURT on the Court. Plaintiff requests this Court serve all named Defendants below via the United States Marshal Service or service directly by the Court as the case in prior filings where the Court has served to the Defendants, although it is further unclear if this Court has served documents to all Amended Complaint Defendants or just a select few Defendants. It is also unclear if Defendants’ counsels similarly have serviced only select Defendants’ and not all the Amended Complaint Defendants and Plaintiffs on Appeal despite referencing the Amended Complaint in their Appeal.

Plaintiff requested the Halting of the Case and the Sealing of the attached Brief Reply Rebuttals and Plaintiff requests that Rebuttals remain sealed until all Oversight authorities summoned in the Motion to Compel have rendered final decisions on the Court and Defendants’ counsel ability to proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff requests not servicing Defendants the requested sealed documents until such time that affirmed Non-Conflicted justices, court personnel and counsel, as requested in the Motion to Compel, are approved to serve proper documents to in compliance with Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes, Public Office Rules and Regulations and Law.

The Amended Complaint list of Defendants necessary to service is as follows:

STATE OF NEW YORK, THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, STEVEN C. KRANE in his official and individual Capacities for the New York State Bar Association and the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, and, his professional and individual capacities as a Proskauer partner, KENNETH RUBENSTEIN, in his professional and individual capacities, ESTATE OF STEPHEN KAYE, in his professional and individual capacities, ALAN S. JAFFE, in his professional and individual capacities, ROBERT J. KAFIN, in his professional and individual capacities, CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER, in his professional and individual capacities, MATTHEW M. TRIGGS in his official and individual capacity for The Florida Bar and his professional and individual capacities as a partner of Proskauer, ALBERT T. GORTZ, in his professional and individual capacities, CHRISTOPHER PRUZASKI, in his professional and individual capacities, MARA LERNER ROBBINS, in her professional and individual capacities, DONALD “ROCKY” THOMPSON, in his professional and individual capacities, GAYLE COLEMAN, in her professional and individual capacities, DAVID GEORGE, in his professional and individual capacities, GEORGE A. PINCUS, in his professional and individual capacities, GREGG REED, in his professional and individual capacities, LEON GOLD, in his professional and individual capacities, MARCY HAHN-SAPERSTEIN, in her professional and individual capacities, KEVIN J. HEALY, in his professional and individual capacities, STUART KAPP, in his professional and individual capacities, RONALD F. STORETTE, in his professional and individual capacities, CHRIS WOLF, in his professional and individual capacities, JILL ZAMMAS, in her professional and individual capacities, JON A. BAUMGARTEN, in his professional and individual capacities, SCOTT P. COOPER, in his professional and individual capacities, BRENDAN J. O'ROURKE, in his professional and individual capacities, LAWRENCE I. WEINSTEIN, in his professional and individual capacities, WILLIAM M. HART, in his professional and individual capacities, DARYN A. GROSSMAN, in his professional and individual capacities, JOSEPH A. CAPRARO JR., in his professional and individual capacities, JAMES H. SHALEK, in his professional and individual capacities, GREGORY MASHBERG, in his professional and individual capacities, JOANNA SMITH, in her professional and individual capacities, MELTZER LIPPE GOLDSTEIN WOLF & SCHLISSEL, P.C. and its predecessors and successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, LEWIS S. MELTZER, in his professional and individual capacities, RAYMOND A. JOAO, in his professional and individual capacities, FRANK MARTINEZ, in his professional and individual capacities, FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, MICHAEL C. GREBE, in his professional and individual capacities, WILLIAM J. DICK, in his professional and individual capacities, TODD C. NORBITZ, in his professional and individual capacities, ANNE SEKEL, in his professional and individual capacities, RALF BOER, in his professional and individual capacities, BARRY GROSSMAN, in his professional and individual capacities, JIM CLARK, in his professional and individual capacities, DOUGLAS A. BOEHM, in his professional and individual capacities, STEVEN C. BECKER, in his professional and individual capacities, BRIAN G. UTLEY, MICHAEL REALE, RAYMOND HERSCH, WILLIAM KASSER, ROSS MILLER, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities, STATE OF FLORIDA, OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR, FLORIDA, HON. JORGE LABARGA in his official and individual capacities, THE FLORIDA BAR, JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS in his official and individual capacities, KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON in her official and individual capacities, LORRAINE CHRISTINE HOFFMAN in her official and individual capacities, ERIC TURNER in his official and individual capacities, KENNETH MARVIN in his official and individual capacities, JOY A. BARTMON in her official and individual capacities, JERALD BEER in his official and individual capacities, BROAD & CASSEL, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, JAMES J. WHEELER, in his professional and individual capacities, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, HON. CHARLES T. WELLS, in his official and individual capacities, HON. HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, in his official and individual capacities HON. R. FRED LEWIS, in his official and individual capacities, HON. PEGGY A. QUINCE, in his official and individual capacities, HON. KENNETH B. BELL, in his official and individual capacities, THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual capacities, DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and individual capacities, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA, CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA., ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and individual capacities, ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual capacities, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, THOMAS J. CAHILL in his official and individual capacities, PAUL CURRAN in his official and individual capacities, MARTIN R. GOLD in his official and individual capacities, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT, CATHERINE O’HAGEN WOLFE in her official and individual capacities, HON. ANGELA M. MAZZARELLI in her official and individual capacities, HON. RICHARD T. ANDRIAS in his official and individual capacities, HON. DAVID B. SAXE in his official and individual capacities, HON. DAVID FRIEDMAN in his official and individual capacities, HON. LUIZ A. GONZALES in his official and individual capacities, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, LAWRENCE DIGIOVANNA in his official and individual capacities, DIANA MAXFIELD KEARSE in her official and individual capacities, JAMES E. PELTZER in his official and individual capacities, HON. A. GAIL PRUDENTI in her official and individual capacities, HON. JUDITH S. KAYE in her official and individual capacities, STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION OF INVESTIGATION, ANTHONY CARTUSCIELLO in his official and individual capacities, LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ELIOT SPITZER in his official and individual capacities, as both former Attorney General for the State of New York, and, as former Governor of the State of New York, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, VIRGINIA STATE BAR, ANDREW H. GOODMAN in his official and individual capacities, NOEL SENGEL in her official and individual capacities, MARY W. MARTELINO in her official and individual capacities, LIZBETH L. MILLER, in her official and individual capacities, MPEGLA, LLC, LAWRENCE HORN, in his professional and individual capacities, REAL 3D, INC. and successor companies, GERALD STANLEY, in his professional and individual capacities, DAVID BOLTON, in his professional and individual capacities, TIM CONNOLLY, in his professional and individual capacities, ROSALIE BIBONA, in her professional and individual capacities, RYJO, INC., RYAN HUISMAN, in his professional and individual capacities, INTEL CORP., LARRY PALLEY, in his professional and individual capacities, SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN, BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, LLP, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, NORMAN ZAFMAN, in his professional and individual capacities, THOMAS COESTER, in his professional and individual capacities, FARZAD AHMINI, in his professional and individual capacities, GEORGE HOOVER, in his professional and individual capacities, WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, MARTYN W. MOLYNEAUX, in his professional and individual capacities, MICHAEL DOCKTERMAN, in his professional and individual capacities, HARRISON GOODARD FOOTE, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE, ALAIN POMPIDOU in his official and individual capacities, WIM VAN DER EIJK in his official and individual capacities, LISE DYBDAHL in her official and personal capacities, YAMAKAWA INTERNATIONAL PATENT OFFICE, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, MASAKI YAMAKAWA, in his professional and individual capacities, CROSSBOW VENTURES, INC., ALPINE VENTURE CAPITAL PARTNERS LP, STEPHEN J. WARNER, in his professional and individual capacities, RENE P. EICHENBERGER, in his professional and individual capacities, H. HICKMAN “HANK” POWELL, in his professional and individual capacities, MAURICE BUCHSBAUM, in his professional and individual capacities, ERIC CHEN, in his professional and individual capacities, AVI HERSH, in his professional and individual capacities, MATTHEW SHAW, in his professional and individual capacities, BRUCE W. SHEWMAKER, in his professional and individual capacities, RAVI M. UGALE, in his professional and individual capacities, DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC., ROYAL O’BRIEN, in his professional and individual capacities, HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED, WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional and individual capacities, WAYNE HUIZENGA, JR., in his professional and individual capacities, TIEDEMANN INVESTMENT GROUP, BRUCE T. PROLOW, in his professional and individual capacities, CARL TIEDEMANN, in his professional and individual capacities, ANDREW PHILIP CHESLER, in his professional and individual capacities, CRAIG L. SMITH, in his professional and individual capacities, HOUSTON & SHAHADY, P.A., and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, BART A. HOUSTON, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities, FURR & COHEN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, BRADLEY S. SCHRAIBERG, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities, MOSKOWITZ, MANDELL, SALIM & SIMOWITZ, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, WILLIAM G. SALIM, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities, SACHS SAX & KLEIN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, BEN ZUCKERMAN, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities, SPENCER M. SAX, in his professional and individual capacities, SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY LLP, and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, RICHARD SCHIFFRIN, in his professional and individual capacities, ANDREW BARROWAY, in his professional and individual capacities, KRISHNA NARINE, in his professional and individual capacities, CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities, ALAN M. WEISBERG, in his professional and individual capacities, ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities, JOHNNIE E. FRAZIER in his official and individual capacities, IVIEWIT, INC., a Florida corporation, IVIEWIT, INC., a Delaware corporation, IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Uview.com, Inc.), UVIEW.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation (f.k.a. Iviewit Holdings, Inc.), IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC., a Florida corporation, IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Florida corporation, I.C., INC., a Florida corporation, IVIEWIT.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, IVIEWIT.COM LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, IVIEWIT LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, IVIEWIT CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, IBM CORPORATION.

Eliot Ivan Bernstein,

_______________________

Pro Se Appellant and Plaintiff

2753 N.W. 34th Street

Boca Raton, Florida 33434

(561) 245-8588

[1] January 29, 2009 Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appeal Stay of Appeal / Conflicts / Docketing and Other Errors / and Other Requests http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090129%20Final%20Extension%20of%20Time%202%20SIGNED%20low.pdf

[2] February 18, 2009 Order USCA http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090218%20Motion%20other%20than%20ext%20sent%20to%20panel%20to%20hear%20appeal%20ORDER.pdf

[3] February 13, 2009 Letter to The Honorable President Barack Hussein Obama II Regarding “Fundamental Matters of the Global Economy and Intellectual Property Rights under Article I of the US Constitution involving direct Fraud on the US Patent Office with devastating impacts on future US Intellectual Property development and Fundamental Matters of the Administration of Justice under Law” http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

[4] August 08, 2008 USDC Dismissal Order http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080808%20Scheindlin%20Dismissal%20of%20Complaint.pdf

[5] Perhaps the Court should remand this Lawsuit to the Supreme Court as suggested by Scheindlin, for further review and analysis, as well as, precedent setting federal Intellectual Property claims.

[6] See Exhibit A

[7] "Fraud On The Court By An Officer Of The Court ~ State and Federal"

Who is an "officer of the court"? A judge is an officer of the court, as well as are all attorneys. A state judge is a state judicial officer, paid by the State to act impartially and lawfully. A federal judge is a federal judicial officer, paid by the federal government to act impartially and lawfully. State and federal attorneys fall into the same general category and must meet the same requirements. A judge is not the court. People v. Zajic, 88 Ill.App.3d 477, 410 N.E.2d 626 (1980).

What is "fraud on the court"? Whenever any officer of the court commits fraud during a proceeding in the court, he/she is engaged in "fraud upon the court". In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."

"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final."

What effect does an act of "fraud upon the court" have upon the court proceeding? "Fraud upon the court" makes void the orders and judgments of that court.

[8] April 27, 2009 Scheindlin Decision and Order – Anderson http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090427%2007cv9599%20Decision.pdf

[9] October 26, 2007 Christine C. Anderson v. State of New York et al. Original Complaint, pages 24 and 25 refer to Iviewit First Dept Complaints http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf

[10] April 27, 2009 Christine Anderson v The State of New York et al. Opinion and Order http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090427%2007cv9599%20Decision.pdf

[11] June 06, 2009 NY Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing Testimony Christine Anderson and more http://iviewit.tv/20090608nysjudiciaryhearing/index.htm

[12] June 08, 2009 Judiciary Hearing Transcript http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090608%20New%20York%20Judiciary%20Committee%20Hearing%20First%20Dept%20Transcript.pdf

[13] June 08, 2009 New York Senate Judiciary Committee Outline for Testimony of Plaintiff Bernstein, submitted to the entire Judiciary Committee prior to the Hearings.

[14] March 21, 2008 Scheindlin Order http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080321%20Order%20Scheindlin.pdf

[15] March 05, 2008 Iviewit Letter to Scheindlin regarding the NY Asst AG Connell Conflicts http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Oposition%20to%20AG%20Cuomo%20letter%20email%20copy.pdf

[16] March 09, 2008 Proskauer to Scheindlin to Stay Service of Amended Complaint, Letter Authored in Conflict of Interest and Violation of Attorney Conduct Codes http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20Proskauer%20to%20Scheindlin%20to%20block%20amended.pdf

[17] May 09, 2008 Scheindlin Order Staying Service of Amended Complaint http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20Scheindlin%20Order%20to%20stay%20amended.pdf

[18] July 15, 2009 The AmLaw Daily “Proskauer Advises Company at Center of Derivatives Probe” http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2009/07/proskauer-on-derivatives-.html

[19] Madoff Bio @ Wikipedia “Madoff, who once served as a non-executive chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, pled guilty to an 11-count criminal complaint, admitting to defrauding thousands of investors of billions of dollars. Madoff convicted of operating a Ponzi scheme that has been called the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person. Federal prosecutors estimated client losses, which included fabricated gains, of almost $65 billion. On June 29, 2009, he was sentenced to 150 years in prison, the maximum allowed.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

[20] Stanford Capital Management, Stanford Group Company, Stanford International Bank f.k.a Guardian International Bank, Bank of Antigua, Stanford Coins and Bullion

[21] Stanford Capital Management, Stanford Group Company, Stanford International Bank f.k.a Guardian International Bank, Bank of Antigua, Stanford Coins and Bullion

[22] Dreier Bio @ Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Stuart_Dreier

[23] May 09, 2008 Amended Complaint http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

[24] May 18, 2009 Wall Street Journal “Madoff Victims Investigated Criminal Probe Expands to High-Profile Investors Who Say They Were Stung” http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:L7gkiTVrYWgJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB124261271530929129.html+Madoff+Victims+Investigated&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[25] May 13, 2009 Business Week “Stanford's Ex-Lawyer is on the Hot Seat” http://www.businessweek.com/investing/wall_street_news_blog/archives/2009/05/stanfords_lawye.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

[26] Stanford Documents SEC http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/stanford/Stanford%20SEC%20Court%20Docs%20Low.pdf

[27] Proskauer Rose 2002 Annual Review http://www.proskauer.com/about_the_firm/firm_brochures/content/2003_01_00_i/_res/id=File/2002AnnualReview.pdf

[28] July 03, 2009 Thomson Reuters “Stanford clients sue insurance broker Willis Group” http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE5624SE20090703

[29] May 13, 2009 Business Week “Stanford's Ex-Lawyer [Defendant Proskauer Partner Sjoblom] is on the Hot Seat” http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090513%20Proskauer%20Sjoblom%20Stanford%20re%20lying%20to%20SEC.pdf

[30] Stanford Court Documents http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/stanford/Stanford%20SEC%20Court%20Docs%20Low.pdf

[31] “From 1979 to 1987, Mr. Sjoblom served as Branch Chief and then Special Counsel to the SEC’s Division of Market Regulation, where he provided interpretive advice to various segments of the securities industry on broker-dealer regulation and transfer agent regulation, back-office issues, trading practices, tender offer practices, market making, and contingency offerings. He also participated in the approval of the "new options products" in the early 1980s, including stock index options and futures and the foreign currency options. Department of Justice Experience While at the SEC, Mr. Sjoblom also served as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, the Western District of New York, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.” http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/8070

[32] March 16, 2009 Memphis Daily News “Miami Meetings at Center of Stanford Woes” http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=41397

[33] February 27, 2009 Houston Chronicle “‘Assets are there,’ Stanford insisted at pivotal meeting” http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/stanford/6285534.html

[34] March 28, 2009 Houston Chronicle “Former lawyer for Stanford [Defendant Proskauer] Sued” http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/stanford/20090328%20Proskauer%20Sued%20by%20Stanford%20Holt%20Sjoblom%20yeah.pdf

[35] July 09, 2009 Talking Points Memo TPM Media LLC “Bernie Madoff: SEC Investigator Fingered Bernie In '04; SEC Chief Lori Richards ‘Resigns’" http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mrs_panstreppon/2009/07/bernie-madoff-sec-investigator.php?ref=reccafe

[36] February 18, 2009 Times Online “Allen Stanford lost money to Bernard Madoff and 'lied to cover it up'” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5759709.ece

[37] February 09, 2009 Law 360 “SEC Enforcement Head Resigns amid Madoff Probe.” http://www.law360.com/registrations/user_registration?article_id=86638&concurrency_check=false

[38] February 23, 2009 Memphis Daily News “Stanford Attorney Quits Following CIO’s Testimony” http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/ArticleEmail.aspx?id=40993&print=1

[39] August 05, 2009 The Deal.com “Legal ties that bind” http://www.thedeal.com/newsweekly/dealmakers/legal-ties-that-bind.php

[40] Wall Street Journal Law Blog “January 2, 2009, “Former AUSA Selected as Bankruptcy Trustee in Dreier Case” http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2009/01/02/former-ausa-selected-as-bankruptcy-trustee-in-dreier-case

[41] Law 360, Friday, May 15, 2009 “1031 Victims Sue Citibank, Foley, Others For $140M

- Clients of The 1031 Tax Group LLC, a bankrupt exchange fund firm run by convicted Ponzi schemer Edward H. Okun, have launched a proposed class action to recover $140 million from Bank of America NA, Citibank NA, Foley & Lardner LLP and others for allegedly facilitating the scheme.” http://www.law360.com/company_articles/1440

[42] August 04, 2009 Wall Street Journal “Okun Joins Madoff in Century Club”

[43] February 02, 2009 Plaintiff Motion to USCA http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf

[44] February 19, 2009 Condé Nast Portfolio.com “Stanford Round-Up, Drug Edition” http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2009/02/19/stanford-round-up-drug-edition

[45] February 22, 2009 Guardian News and Media Limited “The Stanford Affair FBI Investigates possible links with Mexico Drug Gang” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/22/allen-stanford-drugs-trade-mexico

[46] February 18, 2009 Times Online “Allen Stanford lost money to Bernard Madoff and 'lied to cover it up'” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5759709.ece

[47] February 09, 2009 Law 360 “SEC Enforcement Head Resigns amid Madoff Probe.” http://www.law360.com/registrations/user_registration?article_id=86638&concurrency_check=false

[48] February 23, 2009 Memphis Daily News “Stanford Attorney Quits Following CIO’s Testimony” http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/ArticleEmail.aspx?id=40993&print=1

[49] April 10, 2009 Iviewit Proof of Claim in Silicon Graphic Bankruptcy Case 09-11700 thru 09-11704 http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090410%20Proof%20Of%20Claim%20SGI%20BK%20Filing.pdf

[50] April 27, 1999 Letter Richard Rosman, Esq. Regarding Proskauer Opinion Letter to Hassan Miah http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/1999%2004%2027%20Rosman%20to%20Wheeler%20Hassan%20Rubenstein%20Opinion.pdf

[51] March 25, 2009 SEC Complaint - Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar

Fraud on Intel Shareholders and Others http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20090325%20FINAL%20Intel%20SEC%20Complaint%20SIGNED2073.pdf

[52] Real 3D Documents http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Real%203D%20Opinion%20and%20Licensing%20Info.pdf

[53] Wikipedia Real 3D reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real3D

[54] Wikipedia ATI Reference @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATI_Technologies

[55] December 01, 2006 ZDnet News “Justice Dept. Subpoenas AMD, Nvidia” @ http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-150460.html

[56] Iviewit Non Disclosure and Other Agreements @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf

[57] July 22, 2009 Proskauer Client Letter Regarding Marketing the Iviewit Technologies to Proskauer clients http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Armstrong%20Wheeler%20Client%20letter%20with%20highlights.pdf

[58] September 20, 2000 Iviewit Letter to Arthur Andersen http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2000%2009%2020%20Hersh%20to%20Arthur%20Andersen%20Erika%20Lewin%20miffed%20letter.pdf

and

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2000%2010%2009%20ARTHUR%20ANDERSEN%20LETTER%20REGARDING%20PROOF%20OF%20HOLDINGS%20OWNING%20TECH.pdf

and

October 09, 2000 Letter Arthur Andersen to Iviewit http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2000%2011%2027%20ARTHUR%20ANDERSEN%20FILES%20TERMINATION%20LETTER.pdf

and

Arthur Andersen / Iviewit correspondences http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/ARTHUR%20ANDERSEN%20FILES.pdf

[59] September 20, 2000 Iviewit Letter to Arthur Andersen http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2000%2009%2020%20Hersh%20to%20Arthur%20Andersen%20Erika%20Lewin%20miffed%20letter.pdf

[60] March 13, 2003 Forbes, “Feds Say Enron's Braveheart Was Fiction” http://www.forbes.com/2003/03/13/cx_da_0313topnews.html

and

http://www.coolware.com/EnronBroadband.htm

[61] March 09, 2001 InternetNews.com “Blockbuster Kills Video-On-Demand Deal with Enron” http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/709941

[62] August 08, 2009 Houston Chronicle “Another Enron barge trial set for February” http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/stanford/20090808%20Another%20Enron%20Set%20Of%20Trials%20Houston%20Chron.pdf

[63]January 2001 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Wachovia%20Private%20Placement%20Memorandum%20-%20with%20bookmarks%20in%20col.pdf

[64] Wikipedia Reference Arthur Andersen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen

[65] http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm

[66] Scheindlin, in her flawed Dismissal Order, states that after review of Plaintiff’s claim of a RICO Conspiracy extending to the highest levels of Government, involving Murder (according to Scheindlin), Attempted Murder, Patent Theft, Fraud on the USPTO, Fraud on Foreign Nations and more versus the defendants’ frivolous claims of harassment by Plaintiff, that she is unsure whose account is true. From her Dismissal Order Scheindlin claims, “While I cannot determine which of these descriptions is more accurate…” and this statement while Scheindlin exposes “substantive issues” and substantive “conflict” relative to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants making the Dismissal Order again in err and reversible by this Court. The defense of Defendants that they are being harassed makes no sense, as why would Plaintiff want to harass Law Firms composed of thousands of Attorneys, three State Supreme Courts, five State Supreme Court Attorney Disciplinary agencies, the NYAG, Justices from State Supreme Courts, etc? Why have these all too powerful legal Defendants not filed a complaint against little ole Inventor Plaintiff or even a Counter Complaint regarding harassment, as if in fear the LAWYERS and JUSTICES would have to defend their frivolous defenses in the courts when they know the baseless defenses are nothing more than Fraud on the Court. Lawyers, Law Firms, State Supreme Courts, State Disciplinary Agencies, State Bars and Judges, all are afraid of a courtroom, afraid of one Pro Se litigant. Yes it is true, as court is the exact place they do not want Plaintiff with Discovery that destroy them and therefore they have used all sorts of Fraud on the Courts, such as Conflicts and Violations of ACC, JC, PORR and Law for almost a decade to prevent Plaintiff from Due Process in a court of law. Defendants know discovery in these matters would lead to their demise and lengthy prison sentences and are willing to risk everything to stave off prosecution.

[67] February 14, 2005 US Patent Office Suspension Notice 1 @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2005%2002%2014%2009%20630%20939%20US%20Patent%20-%202nd%20six%20month%20extension.pdf

July 20, 2005 US Patent Office Suspension Notice 2 @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2005%2007%2020%20-%2009%20587730%20USPTO%20Suspension%20Second%20Six%20Months.pdf

March 04, 2004 Letter to the Commissioner of Patents Regarding “CHANGE OF INVENTOR REQUEST – INTENT TO DECEIVE AND COMMIT FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO) CLAIMED”

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/EXHIBITS/09%20522%20721%20Change%20of%20Inventorship%20Form%20ALL%20PATENTS%20CROSSBOW%20S.pdf

US DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility July 2007 Confirmation Letter @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2007%2016%20US%20Dept%20of%20Justice%20OPR%20Begins%20Review%20of%20Iviewit%20Matters.pdf

Investigations Masters Document @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm

April 5, 2007 European Professionals Institute Letter referencing Investigation of Defendant Intellectual Property Attorneys @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2004%2005%20EPI%20letter%20response%20insane.pdf

[68] March 09, 2009 Plaintiff’s First Dept DDC Complaints Proskauer and Foley ~ See pages 24-27 @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Opposition%20to%20Proskauer%20letter%20as%20counsel.pdf

[69] January 09, 2009 First Dept DDC Dismissal @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/2009%2001%2012%20First%20Department%20Letter%20Response%20to%20Attorney%20Complaints.pdf

[70] Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (1) – DL, Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL (2), Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL (3), Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL, Uview.com, Inc. – DL, Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL, Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL, I.C., Inc. – FL, Iviewit.com LLC – DL, Iviewit LLC – DL, Iviewit Corporation – FL, Iviewit, Inc. – FL, Iviewit, Inc. – DL, Iviewit Corporation

[71] October 05, 2004 Second Dept DDC Dismissal of Complaints transferred for Investigation by First Dept Court Order WITHOUT Investigation, Kearse later found in Conflict with Defendant Krane by her own admission of such http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2010%2005%20Supreme%20Court%20NY%20Second%20Dept%20Kearse%20Krane%20Re.pdf

and

October 27, 2004 Iviewit Letter to Second Dept DDC Chief Counsel Kearse regarding her Conflict of Interest with Defendant Krane http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20041026%20Kearse%20Krane%20Letter%20NY%20SUPREME%20COURT%20SECOND%20DEP.pdf

and

January 12, 2005 Iviewit Formal Complaint Against Kearse and Others for Conflict, Kearse refused to docket and procedurally dispose of the Complaints http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2005%2001%2010%20DiGiovanna%20Krane%20NY%20SUPREME%20COURT%20SECOND%20DEPT%20CERT.pdf

[72] April 22, 2002 Newsday “Ground Control”

[73] US Patent Application 09-522,721 http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/PATENT%20APP%20DATED%20in%201900%20and%202020.pdf

[74] January 2004 Virginia Business Online @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/VAAG%20HIRES%20FOLEY%20LARDNER.pdf

[75] February 29, 2008 Monica Connell Letter to Scheindlin copying Foley and Proskauer as Counsel for Foley and Proskauer. Pages 20-21 @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Oposition%20to%20AG%20Cuomo%20letter%20email%20copy.pdf

[76] March 09, 2009 Plaintiff’s First Dept DDC Complaints Proskauer and Foley ~ See pages 24-27 @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Opposition%20to%20Proskauer%20letter%20as%20counsel.pdf

[77] January 09, 2009 First Dept DDC Dismissal @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/2009%2001%2012%20First%20Department%20Letter%20Response%20to%20Attorney%20Complaints.pdf

[78] Greenberg Traurig Work Product Iviewit http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2002%2009%2020%20Greenberg%20Truarig%20Proposal%20Patents.pdf

[79] January 16, 2009 The New York Times “’92 Ponzi Case Missed Signals About Madoff” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/business/17ponzi.html

[80] January 19, 2009 The Business Insider, Inc, “Avellino, Bienes And Madoff's Nephew?” http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/1/avellino-bienes-and-madoffs-nephew

[81] November 23, 1993 SEC News http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/1993/dig112393.pdf

[82] July 05, 2009 Eye on Miami “R. Allen Stanford and Miami-based Greenberg Traurig: Why is it always Greenberg Traurig?” http://eyeonmiami.blogspot.com/2009/07/r-allen-stanford-and-miami-based.html

[83] May 17, 2006 Bloomberg “Stanford Financial's `Family' Tie Fails to Impress University” http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a.0EEBl4oTSA&refer=us

[84] June 09, 2004 Iviewit Complaint to Paul J. Curran, Esq., and NYS Attorney General Eliot Spitzer Against Defendant Thomas Cahill: http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/200%2006%2009%20Spitzer%20Curran%20Cahill%20Rubenstein%20Krane.pdf

[85] March 14, 2008 Iviewit Letter to NYAG Connell to Open Prior Public Officer Integrity Complaints for Investigation based on Information Learned in Anderson: http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080314%20FINAL%20Letter%20to%20NY%20AG%20to%20reistigate%20investigation%20on%20new%20evidence.pdf

[86] February 27, 2009 NYAG Public Integrity Unit Complaint Intake Letter http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090217%20NYAG%20Integrity%20Confirmation%20of%20First%20Dept%20Complaints.pdf

[87] New York State Public Officers Law. § 17. 2 (b) Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the employee shall be entitled to be represented by the attorney general, provided, however, that the employee shall be entitled to representation by private counsel of his choice in any civil judicial proceeding whenever the attorney general determines based upon his investigation and review of the facts and circumstances of the case that representation by the attorney general would be inappropriate, or whenever a court of competent jurisdiction, upon appropriate motion or by a special proceeding, determines that a conflict of interest exists and that the employee is entitled to be represented by private counsel of his choice. http://www.ogs.state.ny.us/supportservices/defibrillators/PublicOfficersLawSect17.pdf

[88] June 13, 2009 Letter to NYAG Chief of Staff Steven Cohen Regarding Conflict of Interest http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090613%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20signed%20low.pdf

[89] Checklist For Financial & Other Conflict http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/checklist.pdf

[90] Plaintiff’s US Court of Appeals Second Circuit Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090720%20Conflict%20of%20Interest%20Disclosure%20Form%20US%20Circuit%20Court.doc

[91] Yale Law School Website http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/RWinter.htm

[92] Federal Laws cited as example yet similar State Laws may apply to the crimes alleged herein such as, New York State Law ARTICLE 195 OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT AND OBSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC SERVANTS GENERALLY and ARTICLE 215 OTHER OFFENSES RELATING TO JUDICIAL AND OTHER PROCEEDINGS. Certain State Obstructions did however Obstruct information regarding Federal, State and International Crimes from exposure to Federal Authorities and continue to Obstruct through failure to report the crimes and misconduct by those who have Legal Binding Obligations to report.

[93] Addressing the gap left by section 1503's limitation to legal proceedings, section 1505 targets "corrupt" efforts to obstruct, impede, or influence the "due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1620/Obstruction-Justice-Obstruction-agency-proceedings-congressional-inquiries.html#ixzz0OU16xKMy

[94] Obstruction of Justice is a broad concept that extends to any effort to prevent the execution of lawful process or the administration of justice in either a criminal or civil matter. Obstructive conduct may include the destruction of evidence, the intimidation of potential witnesses or retaliation against actual witnesses, the preparation of false testimony or other evidence, or the interference with jurors or other court personnel. The purpose of criminal obstruction statutes—which every jurisdiction has, in one form or another—is thus to help protect the integrity of legal proceedings and, at the same time, protect those individuals who participate in such proceedings. Indeed, one of the earliest congressional enactments was a 1790 criminal statute that, among other things, established a number of obstruction offenses. http://law.jrank.org/pages/1623/Obstruction-Justice.html

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1623/Obstruction-Justice.html#ixzz0OTODANVT

[95] February 19, 2008 Plaintiff Letter to USDC re Stolen Complaints from US Marshal Office

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080219%20USDCSDNY%20Letter%20re%20missing%20service%20papers.pdf

[96] February 19, 2008 Letter to USDC Regarding Missing US Marshal Papers http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080219%20USDCSDNY%20Letter%20re%20missing%20service%20papers.pdf

[97] August 14, 2009 “Objection of the Debtors to Claim of Eliot I. Bernstein” Chapter 11 Case No. 09-11701 (MG) United States Bankruptcy Court Southern District of New York http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/SGI%20Bankruptcy/20090814%20SGI%20BK%20Objection%20of%20the%20Debtors%20to%20Claim%20of%20Eliot%20Bernstein.pdf

[98] Note that all of the various Frauds on the Courts created rulings, orders and pleadings, which transferred through the US Mail, facsimile, telephonically and through the Internet, constituting further crimes such as Federal Mail and Wire Fraud.

[99] New York Rules cited as example of the Attorney Conduct Code, yet similar laws from Florida, Virginia and others may apply to the crimes alleged herein. All Conduct Codes would need to be cited from 1999 or prior, as several of the Defendants have high-ranking Public Office positions in agencies responsible for modifying the Attorney Conduct Codes.

[100] March 28, 2008 Scheindlin Order http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080328%20Scheindlin%20Order%20re%20Foley%20counsel.pdf

and

May 02, 2008 Foley Counsel Kent Anker Letter to the USDC http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080502%20Foley%20Anker%20Appearance%20and%20letter%20re%20conflicts.pdf

[101] March 05, 2008 Plaintiff Motion to USDC “Plaintiffs Opposition to Proskauer Rose’s March 04, 2008 Letter to this Court....” http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Opposition%20to%20Proskauer%20letter%20as%20counsel.pdf

and

May 05, 2008 USDC Docket Entry 61 “NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Joanna Frances Smith on behalf of Steven C. Krane (in his individual capacity), Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP (pl) (Entered: 05/13/2008)“

[102] May 21, 2004 Iviewit Letter to Proskauer Partner Rubenstein re “Demand for Information” http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2005%2021%20Officer%20and%20Director%20Questions%20-%20RUBENSTEIN%20low.pdf and

May 05, 2004 Iviewit Letter to Proskauer re “Demand for Information” http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2005%2013%20Officer%20and%20Director%20Questions%20-%20WHEELER%20FINAL.pdf

[103] March 22, 2004 Iviewit Rebuttal to William Dick Virginia Bar Complaint Response http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2003%2012%20William%20Dick%20Virginia%20Bar%20Complaint%20Response%20BOOKM.pdf

[104] July 27, 2009 Expose Corrupt Courts “Roy I. Reardon, Corrupt Chairman of Corrupt Manhattan Ethics Committee / Feds Summon Court Corruption Members to Washington, D.C.” http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/07/roy-i-reardon-corrupt-chairman-of.html

[105] February 09, 2009 New York State Office of Attorney General Public Integrity Complaint RE:

I. Roy L. Reardon letter dated January 27, 2009

II. Alan W. Friedberg letter dated January 12, 2009

III. Complaints

A. “New Complaints”

1. Roy L. Reardon, Esq. – Waiting Docket #

2. Alan W. Friedberg, Esq. – Waiting Docket #

B. “2008 Complaints” Matters of Attorney Complaints Docket #2008-0756, appears to attempt to merge multiple complaints into one, waiting formal individual docket #’s from NYAG.

3. Proskauer Rose, LLP – First Dep. Failed to formally docket

4. Foley & Lardner - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

5. Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

6. Joanna F. Smith, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

7. Todd C. Norbitz, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

8. Anne B. Sekel, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

C. “Old Complaints” (Transferred by Unpublished Orders M3198 - Steven C. Krane / M2820 Kenneth Rubenstein and M3212 Raymond A. Joao on Unanimous Consent of First Dept Justices for Conflict of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety to Second Department. Second Department failed to conduct formal investigations ordered by First Dept.)

9. Thomas Cahill Special Inquiry No. 2004.1122 (former 1st Dept Chief Counsel) – Ongoing investigation by Martin Gold.

10. Steven C. Krane docket #2004.1883 (1st Dept Officer, former NYSBA President & Proskauer partner)

11. Kenneth Rubenstein docket #2003.0531 (Proskauer partner)

12. Raymond A. Joao docket #2003-0352

13. Proskauer Rose, LLP - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

14. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel - First Dep. Failed to formally docket

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20NYAG%20PUBLIC%20INTEGRITY%20COMPLAINT%20SIGNED.pdf

[106] March 09, 2009 Plaintiff’s First Dept DDC Complaints Proskauer and Foley ~ See pages 24-27 @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080305%20Final%20Plaintiff%20Opposition%20to%20Proskauer%20letter%20as%20counsel.pdf

[107] June 10, 2004 Iviewit Cahill Complaint sent to Eliot Spitzer http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/200%2006%2009%20Spitzer%20Curran%20Cahill%20Rubenstein%20Krane.pdf

[108] November 07, 2008 Letter from Lamont to First Dept Regarding Cahill Complaint http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20081107%20First%20Department%20Disciplinary%20Letter%20Lamont%20to%20Reardon%20Part%202%20.pdf

[109] June 18, 2009 Eliot Bernstein Letter to Andrew Cuomo Chief of Staff Steven Cohen http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090618%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20Re%20Lamont%20Signed.pdf

[110] May 20, 2004 Iviewit Complaint Against Steven C. Krane of Proskauer at the First Dept DDC http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2005%2019%20KRANE%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20STRIKE%20KRANE%20RESPONSE%20RUBENSTE.pdf

and

May 21, 2004 Krane Response to First Dept DDC Complaint against him http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2005%2021%20krane%20response%20to%20complaint.pdf

and

May 26, 2004 Iviewit Response to Krane Response http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2005%2026%20-%20Response%20to%20Krane%20letter%205%2021%2004.pdf

and

June 29, 2004 Iviewit Letter to Paul Curran regarding Moving the Cahill Complaint due to Conflicts of Krane http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2006%2017%20Cahill%20Motion%20to%20move%20complaints%20krane%20rubenstein.pdf

and

July 08, 2004 Motion Filed At First Dept by Iviewit regarding Conflicts of Krane, Proskauer, Rubenstein, Joao, Meltzer and Cahill http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2007%2008%20RUBENSTEIN%20KRANE%20JOAO%20MOTION%20FINAL%20BOOKMARKED.pdf

and

August 11, 2004 First Dept Orders for Investigation and Transfer of Complaints against Krane, Rubenstein, Joao, Meltzer and Proskauer http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2008%2011%20new%20york%20first%20department%20orders%20investigation%20Krane%20Rubenstein%20Joao.pdf

[111] July 02, 2003 Iviewit Rebuttal to Rubenstein Response to First Dept DDC Complaint, authored by Krane acting in Conflict and Violation of ACC, PORR and Law http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2007%2002%20Iviewit%20Rebuttal%20to%20Rubenstein%20Response%20Final%20ALL%20.pdf

[112] Plaintiff’s former Intellectual Property Attorneys wrote Intellectual Property Applications for Plaintiff’s Technologies into unknown others names as Inventors that now act to prevent the US Patent Office from disclosing the Owner, Assignees and Inventors of those Applications to Plaintiff due to privacy issues. The mystery of who these inventors are is now subject to Congressional Intervention at the request of Harry I. Moatz and subject of Investigation by the USPTO and USPTO OED. The following link to a Letter Dated February 01, 2007 to the Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein provides further information @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2007%2002%2001%20FINAL%20Senate%20Bill%20Signed.pdf

[113] May 26, 2003 Iviewit Rebuttal to Raymond Joao Disciplinary Complaint Response at the First Dept DDC http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2005%2026%20Iviewit%20Rebuttal%20to%20Joao%20Response%20BOOKMARKED.pdf

[114] April 30, 2003 Iviewit Rebuttal to Christopher Wheeler Florida Bar Complaint Response, Wheeler’s Response tendered in Conflict and Violation of Florida Bar PORR http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2004%2030%20Bernstein%20response%20Florida%20Bar%20Wheeler%20BOOKMARKED%201.pdf

[115] July 22, 2004 Iviewit Florida Bar Complaint against Proskauer Partner Triggs

[116] November 07, 2008 Lamont Letter to Reardon @ First Department http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20081107%20First%20Department%20Disciplinary%20Letter%20Lamont%20to%20Reardon%20Part%202%20.pdf

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20081118%20Lamont%20Telephone%20Conversation%20Reardon.txt

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090114%20Motion%20to%20First%20Department%20Court_Cahill%20and%20Friedberg_Executed.pdf

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090127%20First%20Department%20Letter%20Reardon%20Dismissing%20Complaint%20against%20Cahill%20and%20Friedberg.pdf Document Appears not to be on Official Office Letterhead

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090128%20Lamont%20Letter%20to%20Senator%20John%20Sampson.pdf

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090202%20Lamont%20Letter%20to%20Jonathan%20Lippman.pdf

[117] Defendant Michael Grebe, formerly of Defendant Foley and now President of the Right Wing Bradley Foundation, was Chief Counsel to the RNC and the largest contributor and backer to the George W. Bush ILLEGAL, DISPUTED and FAILED (lowest approval rating of any US President ever on leaving office) Presidency. Both institutional legacies, the Presidency and the RNC ended in tragedy with Bush Administration Officials and Lawyers facing certain eventual War Crime trials and as for the RNC, well who wants to be associated with the Grand Ole Nazi Party as they say today worldwide. The Country owes the guilty of these crimes, crimes directly resulting from Grebe’s man Bush, thrust in the Whitehouse amid voter fraud claims and an Illegal election decided by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision that usurped Democracy at that point and all points forward, a six-gun salute with a firing squad for treason, as always, firing squads free @ www.iviewit.tv.

[118] October 29, 2003 Iviewit Letter to USDOJ – Anti-Trust Division http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2010%2030%20DOJ%20Antritrust%20Final%20Signed%20Digital%20EIB%20+%20PSL.PDF

[119] January http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2001%2013%20Antitrust%20Division%20Response.pdf

[120] New York State Consolidated Laws hold that:

Any person may arrest another person (a) for a felony when the latter has in fact committed such felony, and (b) for any offense when the latter has in fact committed such offense in his presence. (N.Y.C.L. 140.30).

[121] The Judges' Trial (or the Justice Trial, or, officially, The United States of America vs. Josef Altstötter, et al.) was the third of the twelve trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany in Nuremberg after the end of World War II. These twelve trials were all held before U.S. military courts, not before the International Military Tribunal, but took place in the same rooms at the Palace of Justice. The twelve U.S. trials are collectively known as the "Subsequent Nuremberg Trials" or, more formally, as the "Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals" (NMT).

The defendants in this case were 16 German jurists and lawyers. Nine had been officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the others were prosecutors and judges of the Special Courts and People's Courts of Nazi Germany. They were—amongst other charges—held responsible for implementing and furthering the Nazi "racial purity" program through the eugenic and racial laws.

The judges in this case, heard before Military Tribunal III, were Carrington T. Marshall (presiding judge), former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio, James T. Brand from Oregon, Mallory B. Blair from Texas, and Justin Woodward Harding as an alternate judge. Marshall had to retire due to illness on June 19, 1947, at which point Brand became president and Harding a full member of the tribunal. The Chief of Counsel for the Prosecution was Telford Taylor; his deputy was Charles M. LaFollette. The indictment was presented on January 4, 1947; the trial lasted from March 5 to December 4, 1947. Ten of the defendants were found guilty; four received sentences for lifetime imprisonment, the rest prison sentences of varying lengths.

[122] Thursday, March 19, 2009 Gryphon Investigations “ALBERT HU, SILICON VALLEY HEDGE FUND MANGER, ARRESTED IN HONG KONG” http://blog.gryphoninvestigations.com

Canto VII ~ Motion to Kiss My Ass

08-4873-CV

United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit

Eliot Ivan Bernstein

Plaintiff – Appellant

--v--

Defendants:

TO BE ADDED NEW DEFENDANTS IN THE RICO AND ANTITRUST LAWSUIT THROUGH AMENDMENT OR IN ANY ANTICIPATED FUTURE LITIGATIONS AND CRIMINAL FILINGS:

Andrew Cuomo in his official and individual capacities,
Justice Richard C. Wesley in his official and individual capacities,
Justice Peter W. Hall in his official and individual capacities,
Justice Debra Ann Livingston in her official and individual capacities,
Justice Ralph K. Winter in his official and individual capacities
Justice Shira A. Scheindlin in her official and individual capacities,
Alan Friedberg in his official and individual capacities,
Roy Reardon in his official and individual capacities,
Judge Martin Glenn in his official and individual capacities,
Warner Bros. Entertainment,
Wayne Smith, Esq., in his official and individual capacities,
Time Warner Communications,
AOL Inc.,
Sony Corporation
Ropes & Gray,
Stanford Financial Group,
Bernard L. Madoff et al.
Marc S. Dreier,
Sony Corporation,
Ernst & Young,
Arthur Andersen,
Enron,
MPEGLA LLC, all Licensors and Licensees
DVD6C LICENSING GROUP, all Licensors and Licensees
P. Stephen Lamont

Defendants – Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

07Civ11196 (SAS) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

LEGALLY “Related” Case

07Civ9599 (SAS-AJP) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al.

LEGALLY “related” to anderson

07CIV11196 (SAS) BERNSTEIN, ET AL. V APPELLATE DIVISION FIRST DEPARTMENT DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, ET AL.

07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

08cv02391McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.

08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al.

08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.

08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.

08cv6368 John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al.

-----------------------------------

EMERGENCY MOTION TO KISS MY ASS AND CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUSTICES AND OFFICERS OF THIS COURT

--------------------------

ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN, PRO SE

2753 N.W. 34^TH STREET

BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33434-3459

(561) 245.8588 (o) / (561) 886.7628 (c) / (561) 245-8644 (f)

iviewit@iviewit.tv / www.iviewit.tv

------------

EMERGENCY MOTION TO KISS MY ASS AND CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST JUSTICES AND OFFICERS OF THIS COURT

Table of Contents

TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction – THe JIGGY IS UP on the corruption by court officials, fRAUD ON COURT BY COURT OFFICIALS EXPOSED BY legally related WHISTLEBLOWER lawsuit.. PAGEREF _Toc261161119 \h 9

RESPONSE TO ILLEGALLY TENDERED ORDER OF DISMISSAL – citizen’s arrest of members of this court for felony obstruction of justice and more.. PAGEREF _Toc261161120 \h 13

Denial of Due Process through Denial of Right to Counsel through Extortion of Lawyers and Court Personnel to obstruct justice, evidenced in LEGALLY RELATED whistleblower anderson lawsuit.. PAGEREF _Toc261161121 \h 16

What Is and What Is Not MERITORIOUS in the LAWSUIT before this Court.. PAGEREF _Toc261161122 \h 21

What Is Not Frivolous. PAGEREF _Toc261161123 \h 22

What Is Frivolous. PAGEREF _Toc261161124 \h 27

EXHIBIT 1 - CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. PAGEREF _Toc261161125 \h 29

Justices Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall and Debra Ann Livingston of the New York Second Circuit Court and Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe – Clerk of the Court.. PAGEREF _Toc261161126 \h 30

· March 02, 2010 Expose Corrupt Courts ~ Committee On Public Integrity Calls On Feds for Federal Monitor Over NY State Court System - “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) PAGEREF _Toc261161127 \h 30

Justice Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court – Southern District of New York.. PAGEREF _Toc261161128 \h 31

The New York Attorney General ~ Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo.. PAGEREF _Toc261161129 \h 32

New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee ~ Roy Reardon, Alan Friedberg.. PAGEREF _Toc261161130 \h 33

P. Stephen Lamont.. PAGEREF _Toc261161131 \h 34

whistleblower christine c. Anderson Related Crimes. PAGEREF _Toc261161132 \h 35

New York Attorney General – Illegal Representation / Obstruction.. PAGEREF _Toc261161133 \h 35

First Department Obstructions and other Crimes. PAGEREF _Toc261161134 \h 35

US Attorney – New York.. PAGEREF _Toc261161135 \h 35

New York District Attorney.. PAGEREF _Toc261161136 \h 35

New York Assistant District Attorney.. PAGEREF _Toc261161137 \h 35

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn.. PAGEREF _Toc261161138 \h 35

Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Virginia Attorney General, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel, Raymond Joao & Greenberg Traurig.. PAGEREF _Toc261161139 \h 35

Federal Laws violated, including but not limited to, PAGEREF _Toc261161140 \h 36

Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241. PAGEREF _Toc261161141 \h 36

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242. PAGEREF _Toc261161142 \h 37

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees PAGEREF _Toc261161143 \h 37

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally. PAGEREF _Toc261161144 \h 38

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. PAGEREF _Toc261161145 \h 39

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1506 Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail PAGEREF _Toc261161146 \h 39

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1509 Obstruction of court orders. PAGEREF _Toc261161147 \h 39

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant. PAGEREF _Toc261161148 \h 40

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1514 Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness PAGEREF _Toc261161149 \h 43

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1515 Definitions for certain provisions; general provision. PAGEREF _Toc261161150 \h 45

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1519 Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy. PAGEREF _Toc261161151 \h 46

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 152 Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery. PAGEREF _Toc261161152 \h 47

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 154 Adverse interest and conduct of officers. PAGEREF _Toc261161153 \h 48

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 157 Bankruptcy fraud. PAGEREF _Toc261161154 \h 48

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 158 Designation of United States attorneys and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to address abusive reaffirmations of debt and materially fraudulent statements in bankruptcy schedules. PAGEREF _Toc261161155 \h 49

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 11 § 201 Bribery of public officials and witnesses. PAGEREF _Toc261161156 \h 49

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 11 § 225 Continuing financial crimes enterprise. PAGEREF _Toc261161157 \h 52

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. PAGEREF _Toc261161158 \h 52

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 21 § 402 Contempts constituting crimes. PAGEREF _Toc261161159 \h 53

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 31 § 641 Public money, property or records. PAGEREF _Toc261161160 \h 54

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 95 § 1959 Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity. PAGEREF _Toc261161161 \h 54

STATE LAW VIOLATIONS NEW YORK, VIRGINIA, FLORIDA and delaware.. PAGEREF _Toc261161162 \h 55

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. PAGEREF _Toc261161163 \h 84

Introduction – THe JIGGY IS UP on the corruption by court officials and public officials constituting fRAUD ON COURTs now EXPOSED BY an inside WHISTLEBLOWer of the new york Courts

Appellant Bernstein, pro se, moves to compel the appointment of counsel and for extensive relief. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED to the extent it seeks to compel the appointment of counsel and the appeal is DISMISSED because it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e); see also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); see also Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14,17 (2d Cir. 1995) (this Court has "inherent authority, wholly aside from any statutory warrant, to dismiss an appeal or petition for review as frivolous when the appeal or petition presents no arguably meritorious issue for our consideration.''). It is further ORDERED that the remainder of Appellant Bernstein's motion to compel, and all motions that remain pending before this Court, are DENIED as moot.

In response to this Court’s ILLEGALLY TENDERED DISMISSAL of my Appeal on January 05, 2010, herein referred to as “Illegally Tendered Order of Dismissal”[1], I want to first thank the Court for providing further evidence of certain members of this Court’s CONTINUED CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT. The Illegally Tendered Order of Dismissal provides additional Prima Fascia Evidence for the CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS and REQUEST FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE COURT already filed against members of this Court and contained in the Motion to Compel[2]. The Motion to Compel circulated to Federal and State Criminal Investigators and this Court’s Oversights already and wherefore Plaintiff patiently awaits responses from each, as members of this Court already are allegedly committing felony crimes and conducting a massive FRAUD ON THE COURTS. Criminal charges are alleged against each Court Official who put their fingerprints on this lawsuit by issuing any orders or any other actions constituting involvement in the lawsuit, without first resolving ALL, and there are many, Conflicts of Interest, Violations of Judicial Canons, Violations of Attorney Codes of Conduct and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws. The alleged illegal legal misconduct acts together, in typical legal conspiratorial fashion as alleged in my RICO STATEMENT in my Amended Complaint, illegally to block my legal Due Process and Procedural Rights. The criminal acts committed with scienter to cover-up the original crimes in the courts, act to Obstruct Justice as defined under Title 18 USC and NY State Law, through a myriad of illegal conflict of interest that serve to aid and abet the alleged RICO Criminal Enterprise. The alleged RICO Enterprise defined in the RICO STATEMENT of the Amended Complaint and further defined herein is composed mainly of dirty rotten lawyers, law firms, prosecutors, public officials and judges, whereby the original conspirators were leading US law firms with the ability to infiltrate those public office positions necessary to block due process against them.

Perhaps these are the very “favored lawyers and law firms” Whistleblower Anderson refers to as having disciplinary complaints against them WHITEWASHED by Court Officials. Just who those “favored law firms and lawyers” and which DA and ADA she refers to, all remain a mystery due to a failure to investigate the public officials who are conflicted causing Obstruction and whereby this Court’s attempt to block my rights to discovery of this information in a legally related case, again acts as Obstruction. The fact that Anderson makes claims of a “Cleaner” named Naomi Goldstein at the First Dept. also should demand that all prior disciplinary complaints and lawsuits would need to be re-heard in entirety by non-conflicted parties, not accused of ethical immorality and violations of law. The actions of members of this Court are in flagrant violation of the Attorney Conduct Codes, Judicial Cannons, Public Office Rules & Regulations, State and Federal FELONY laws and this Court’s own Rules and Regulations as described in my Motion to Compel. The Obstruction caused by these crimes committed by court officials further constitutes a continued Fraud on the Court(s). Therefore, sooner or later, all Orders of the Court(s) and all representation by ILLEGALLY CONFLICTED COUNSEL, including but not limited to, the New York Attorney General, Proskauer Rose LLP, Foley & Lardner and others, already described in numerous filings with this Court and the US District Court, stricken and used as Prima Fascia evidence of the Criminal Cover-Up inside the Court(s).

Anderson already has fingered not only high-ranking court officials but also NY State and Federal prosecutorial officials, including but not limited to, the New York Attorney General[3], the US Attorney, the DA and ADA. With Anderson’s revelations in open US Federal Court under sworn oath, Your “Jiggy is Up”, Your robes down, Your cover blown by an insider, all now with tentacles to members of this Court who have allowed these crimes to continue in the Courts, all whome must now be wholly disqualified from further ILLEGAL involvement in the lawsuits. Removed and arrested for crimes already alleged committed and then investigated to determine how many cases have been Whitewashed, by whom, etc. In replacement, an immediate summoning of a Federal Monitor is necessary, as called for in the Anderson lawsuit, to nullify all Conflicts of Interest that Obstruct Justice created by the New York AG and the Judges whom allow the illegal Conflicts to continue. Due to the number of high-ranking Public Officials and Court Officers in New York alleged herein and in Anderson to have participated in these cover-up crimes, all acting to criminally Obstruct Justice in matters against them, the matters must now move outside the tangled web of illegal conflicts in New York and this Court, again Ohio may be more suitable.

RESPONSE TO ILLEGALLY TENDERED ORDER OF DISMISSAL – citizen’s arrest of members of this court for felony obstruction of justice and more

Allow me to retort to your Illegally Tendered Order of Dismissal and respond in kind with the fact that this MOTION TO KISS MY ASS, now attached to your ILLEGALLY TENDERED DISMISSAL will serve as further evidence in the criminal complaints to Federal, State and Court law enforcement oversight authorities already filed against the members of this Court and others listed in Exhibit 1. Again, let me remind the Court that I already have made a Citizen’s Arrest of certain members of the Court in my Motion to Compel, including but not limited to, Dishonorable Judge Ralph Winters and Defendant and Witness in my RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit, Clerk of this Court, Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe. Wolfe is a central witness in my lawsuit, a Defendant in my lawsuit and formerly Clerk of the Court for Defendant the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department and now Clerk of this Court. Therefore, let this EMERGENCY MOTION TO KISS MY ASS also serve as notice of additional Citizen’s Arrest for FELONY violations of state, federal and international law, against the three new signing Justice’s of the Dismissal Order, Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall and Debra Ann Livingston. Also to be included in the criminal complaints and request for oversight is the New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for his involvement in the Criminal Obstruction in the state and federal courts, including this Court. Additionally, I will seek leave to amend this RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, to further include all those new parties listed in Exhibit 1, as additional defendants in the RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit. Those parties listed in Exhibit 1 are further noticed herein of their liabilities and will also be defendants in all threatened future and forthcoming litigation. Therefore, this Court and all those listed in Exhibit 1 can take this MOTION TO KISS MY ASS as Formal Service of your involvement as defendants in the ongoing lawsuit and all threatened future lawsuits and further used to notify all state auditors and parties with liabilities resulting from these actions. This lawsuit based upon the Amended Complaint is for no less than 12 Trillion Dollars of Damages. As many of those listed in Exhibit 1 are also sued individually, let this MOTION TO KISS MY ASS serve as personal notification of identical liabilities for all liability carriers you are obligated to report to.

Additionally, let this MOTION TO KISS MY ASS serve as formal notice to the New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo and all members of his staff, who continue ILLEGALLY to represent State Defendants in this lawsuit in VIOLATION OF LAW and simultaneously deny Honest Services to the People of New York, that they are being reported to State, Federal and International Authorities for the Criminal Acts alleged herein and in my Motion to Compel for formal criminal processing. As the NY AG is representing the State Defendants in this Lawsuit, service of this Motion to Kiss My Ass will also serve as formal service of Criminal Allegations levied against them and notice that a formal Citizen’s Arrest for their felonies herein made with a request for them to turn themselves in to the proper authorities.

Due to the failing to heed the Miranda Rights already served in my Motion to Compel[4] for FELONY Criminal Acts already committed by members of this Court and counsel representing Defendants, I again urge the herein named members of this Court and Defendant Counsel to turn yourselves in to criminal authorities for the Felonies you are accused of and to begin procedural processing of the criminal allegations levied herein against you. Let me alert you to the fact that with Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson’s riveting sworn testimony both in a US District Court and before the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, of corruption within the New York State Court System[5] and New York Federal Court System, including Senior Public Officials of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, the United States Attorney in New York and the New York Attorney General and all of those public officials fingered by Anderson as involved in the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, including OFFICIAL DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION, THREATS ON FEDERAL WITNESSES, etc. will now be required to be investigated by LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS.

This Courts herein named members continuing to adjudicate with multiple conflicts of interests, violations of law, violations of attorney conduct codes and judicial canons in these matters, is no longer trusted, in fact, suspect. Court members are now suspect and further alleged complicit in criminal acts in furtherance of the RICO and Antitrust claims of my lawsuit. Until Law Enforcement and Court Oversights can determine the veracity of the criminal allegations herein, in my Motion to Compel and all filings with all courts to have acted legally, the Court’s urgency to dismiss the case despite the request to HALT the case pending review by Law Enforcement and Court Oversights, including the fact that Anderson remains ONGOING, becomes highly suspect. If this Court’s Jesters have nothing to hide, certainly they will welcome a fair review of their actions by their Oversights and Law Enforcement. Again, I urge the Court to Halt the Proceedings pending the outcome of the Criminal Complaints and requests for Oversight of this Court’s members accused herein and filed with Criminal Authorities and Oversights already. All further Orders or Actions while Conflicts exist will further be used as prima fascia evidence of your continued CRIMINAL CONDUCT and every action of the Court’s members will serve as a new complaint for felony violations of law.

Denial of Due Process through Denial of Right to Counsel through Extortion of Lawyers and Court Personnel acting to obstruct justice, evidenced in LEGALLY RELATED whistleblower anderson lawsuit

What strikes me first is this Court continuing to handle this Appeal despite a plethora of Conflicts of Interest, Violations of Public Office Rules & Regulations, Violations of Judicial Cannons and VIOLATIONS of State and Federal Felony Laws by court officials and attorneys involved directly in this Lawsuit, many acting illegally as their own counsel. These actions are in violation of law and therefore establish a FRAUD ON THE COURT, which ultimately invalidates all orders and actions by members of this Court. (krh cite laws) Most interesting is that the Court first attempts to dismiss the Motion to Compel to the “extent it seeks to compel the appointment of counsel” while failing to deal with the multitude of other issues, including the Criminal Misconduct of members of this Court. Let me remind you that this Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit was initially filed to complement and support the efforts of a Whistleblower, Christine C. Anderson and her heroic efforts to expose systemic corruption inside the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. In fact, the very beginnings of this lawsuit are wholly related to Anderson, as I was brought into the matters through a former DDC employee, Frank Brady aka Kevin McKeown, who knew or knew of Christine Anderson’s plight and other lawsuits and whereby McKeown and several other lawsuits are legally related case to the ongoing Anderson lawsuit. McKeown has also given testimony before the NY Senate Judiciary Committee with Anderson and me. Whereby in her original complaint Anderson mentions my formal complaints against New York Supreme Court Officers as it relates to her lawsuit and then was so enticed to file a Federal RICO lawsuit in support.

As I come in support of Anderson’s effort to help take a bite out of the crime plaguing New York and its dirty courts, the courts should pay my counsel to clean its own house of corruption that extends to this Court, with a lawyer in Ohio perhaps. For is it my job as a US Citizen, an individual, to pay for lawsuits with direct ties to a Whistleblower Lawsuit with claims that Public Officials and Court Officials have violated multitudes of CRIMINAL ACTS INCLUDING OBSTRUCTION IN STATE AND FEDERAL COURT? Where the crimes are virtually identical to those I had claimed for several years before knowing a Whistleblower would come forth wholly supporting and validating my MERITORIOUS claims, further exposing the criminal official misconduct affecting my due process rights through OBSTRUCTION?

What is further wrong with your denial of counsel is that it attempts to dismiss my Motion to Compel without addressing the germane conflicts and violations of law, which would preclude this Court’s handling the Motion to Compel, as the members of this Court named therein would be under investigation for the alleged felonious Court misconduct. The members of this Courts’ criminal acts further act to disable my due process rights, in the fact that my rights to private counsel are denied through a system of EXTORTION of lawyers and court personnel by those in charge of the courts. Anderson and Corrado exposing the methods used to silence SUPREME COURT OFFICIALS who attempt to expose the corruption and the resulting backlash received for standing up to the corruption, which now causes lawyers and court officials acting as Whistleblowers to fear for their lives and livelihoods or comply with the criminal acts. In fact, Corrado had threats levied against her, a New York State Supreme Court First Department STAFF ATTORNEY, on her way to testify in a FEDERAL LAWSUIT again by SUPREME COURT OF NY OFFICIALS, as she went to give deposition testimony in Anderson. The following sworn statement from Anderson exhibits all of the criminal elements of TITLE 18 OBSTRUCTION, EXTORTION OF A FEDERAL WITNESS IN A PUBLIC CORRUPTION TRIAL and more.

From Anderson’s sworn statement I quote,

Although the then Chief Counsel of the DDC, Thomas Cahill, stepped down in 2007, evidence clearly establishes that under the leadership of Alan Friedberg, the current Chief Counsel, the same practice of corruption and whitewashing of complaints continues. Such practice robs the public of any hope at justice; it also works to the detriment of the very public the DDC is duty-bound to serve.

During the course of my litigation against the DDC, a former colleague of mine, who still works as a Principal Attorney at the DDC, agreed to testify on my behalf at a deposition. This former colleague, Nicole Corrado, has been employed by the DDC for approximately eight years, prior to which she worked as a prosecutor for New York State. On the morning of her deposition, however, while en route to her deposition, Ms. Corrado was approached on the street by a supervisor at the DDC, who threatened and intimidated her with respect to her upcoming deposition testimony. Although terribly shaken, Ms. Corrado nonetheless sat for her deposition and testified truthfully. Following her deposition, however, Ms. Corrado has been subjected to further harassment and intimidation at the hands of the DDC. She has been forced to take a leave of absence as a result.

Thus, honest lawyers and lawyers even inside the court system fear for their lives and their livelihoods in attempting to expose YOUR corruption, afraid to spit in your rotten faces for fear of repercussion. I can see no better instance for this Court to provide counsel for a Plaintiff and even protection for the Plaintiff and attorneys brave enough to represent and expose the systemic corruption of the courts. Private attorneys who would normally represent injured parties also fear taking on these cases where Judges, Lawyers, Law Firms and Prosecutors are named Defendants, for fear they will be disbarred or precluded from business by the Courts or worse threatened as Anderson and Corrado evidence.

In fact, it can be argued that the denial of due process caused through this extortionary usurping of both right to counsel and right to fair and impartial due process by the courts, including on complaints against court officers and lawsuits against them, through this extortionary tactic of threatening lawyers and court personnel to be silent about the corruption or else, as described by both Anderson, Corrado and the related cases, furthers Plaintiff’s RICO claims. Anderson further claims that she eye witnessed document destruction of case files and other forms of OBSTRUCTION. Again, further evidence of BRAND NEW Criminal Obstruction of these Federal proceedings denying my inherent right to counsel and inherent right to fair and impartial law due process under the US and NY Constitutions. Bear in mind the very real, non-frivolous, meritorious claims of Anderson that criminal activities in the NY courts are taking place with not only the US Attorneys and the District Attorneys but additionally for yet unknown “favored law firms and lawyers” as she testified in US Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin’s courtroom. Perhaps this Court’s rush to dismiss the related cases to Anderson comes in fear that if Plaintiffs are allowed discovery of who these “favored law firms and lawyers” are, the related cases lawsuits would all be subject to reinvestigation, those involved arrested and convicted and at conflict free hearings, the wall of corruption would come crumbling down upon this Court.

Rights to Counsel prevented through extortion of lawyers by those controlling the legal process and legal establishment, yet this Court attempts to claim that my claims virtually identical to Anderson’s of the corruption, against many of the same people fingered by Anderson are non meritorious. Of course, a conclusion reached by members of this Court acting outside their official duties and in violation of felony law and thus a worthless conclusion concocted as part of the overall Fraud on the Court committed by members of this Court. We shall now allow the Criminal Authorities and your Oversights to have a say about your heavy-handed attempts to deny due process to your victims through this racketeering behavior inside the halls of justice that act to prevent honest attorneys, Whistleblowers and private injured parties from exposing the corruption. The Motion to Compel already forwarded to criminal authorities and the Court’s oversights as an initial formal complaint of the allegations against members of this Court and more.

So let me be clear, straight up and in your face, if members of this Court think they are going to aid and abet the Criminal Enterprise comprised of dirty rotten criminal Law Firms, Lawyers, Prosecutors and Judges, whom with scienter conspire to attempt to steal my Intellectual Properties through the commission of crimes, including but not limited to, Fraud on the United States Patent Office, Fraud on Foreign Nations and Fraud on a United States Court, using brute force Denial of Due Process through Criminal Obstruction to achieve the blocking of my rights, you are seriously mistaken. Your actions to block my rights to Due Process to Aid and Abet in the theft of my Intellectual Properties have now added the members of this Court named herein to the long list of dirty rotten lawyers, judges and public officials masquerading as justice officials that are already Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit. I remind you that the case is marked legally “RELATED” to the ongoing WHISTLEBLOWER case of Anderson.

Therefore, take this MOTION TO KISS MY ASS as FORMAL NOTICE that the court officials and others listed in Exhibit 1 are added to my ongoing litigation and all future litigations. Due to the Intellectual Property matters at stake, where the clock has been frozen due to SUSPENSION of the intellectual properties by the US Patent Office due to ONGOING FEDERAL INVESTIGATIONS, you can anticipate legal actions to continue at a minimum of 20 years from the time the IP is released from suspension and as all these actions of the Court are part of a larger Fraud on the Courts, these cases will be appealed forever or until justice and order are returned to the Courts and the criminals within the Courts are removed. Therefore, the Court Officials added as new Defendants herein may find this lawsuit going forward similar to a bad divorce that you cannot escape from for the next twenty years or more and as such, I welcome you to Iviewit.

What Is and What Is Not MERITORIOUS in the LAWSUIT before this Court

Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, _ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final.

What Is Not Frivolous

1. Certainly, it is not frivolous that this lawsuit has been marked, along with others, as legally “RELATED” to an ONGOING Whistleblower lawsuit by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin. Anderson, the Whistleblower, has fingered the offices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department, the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the United States Attorney New York Offices, the New York District Attorney Offices, the New York Assistant District Attorney, Favored Law Firms and Lawyers and the New York Attorney General’s Office. Anderson similarly accuses them all of felonious conduct and mentions my companies Iviewit directly in her original filing with the US District Court. Funny enough, some of the exact same agencies and individuals my complaints complain of, alleging similar and identical ILLEGAL TITLE 18 OBSTRUCTIONS OF JUSTICE by the corrupted officials within the agencies. From Anderson’s Jury Decision I quote,

Deprivation of a Federal Right: Plaintiff's Acts of Speech:

Question I. Has plaintiff proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that she made statements that the DOC failed to diligently prosecute complaints of misconduct made by the public against attorneys? YES / NO

Answer: YES

2. In fact, Anderson and my lawsuit share similar defendants, including a member of this Court, the Clerk of this Court who actively participates in my lawsuit and the related cases in violation of the rules of this Court. Anderson also has as a defendant Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill of the First Dept DDC, accused of almost identical crimes in my lawsuit. In fact, Anderson blew the whistle much after my formal complaints against the same agencies and individuals, filed and then dismissed illegally through a series of Conflicts of Interest, Violations of Public Offices and Law. Whereby Anderson’s almost identical claims filed years later in her lawsuit, confirmed many of my earlier claims; claims that Conflicts of Interest existed in the courts and now proven not only to exist but now confirmed by an insider gone Whistleblowing.

3. Very real, meritorious and non-frivolous allegations from the Whistleblower, including but not limited to, claims of Conflicts of Interest acting to Obstruct Justice through Criminal Activities for Favored Lawyers and Law Firms, US Attorneys, DA’s, ADA’s and Ethics Department Officials. Again, very real, non-frivolous Conflicts of Interest, Violations of Public Office, Violations of Judicial Cannons, Violations of Ethical Codes and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws[6].

4. Those very real and non-frivolous allegations by the Whistleblower are similar and identical to my very real and non-frivolous claims of Conflict of Interest, Denial of Due Process and Public Office Violations constituting Criminal Obstruction contained in an earlier filing with the First Department which led to an Order by Five Justices of the First Department for investigations of three attorneys and the Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety. Anderson, in her Original Complaint further points to my Motion filed against these senior members of the NY Supreme Court and Law Firms that led to the Orders for Investigation. Investigations later found derailed through further illegal obfuscations of Justices and where no investigation has yet been performed and whereby the Justices who have failed to force the investigations they ordered are now Defendants in this case. Whereby, the motion Anderson points to, which led to the Orders for Investigation where directed by Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of this Court, Defendant in my Lawsuit, Witness in My Lawsuit, initial Defendant in Anderson’s lawsuit, now witness in Anderson’s lawsuit, who aided me in filing the motion and placing herself heroically into the crossfire by allowing the filing to point directly to her damning statements that led to the orders for investigation in part. Damning statements against heads of the Departments and former Presidents of the New York State Bar Association and tentacle to former head of the New York Courts, Judith Kaye, a central Defendant in my lawsuit.

5. Whereby those very real, non-frivolous and meritorious Orders for Investigation, Unpublished Orders that have never been fulfilled or ruled upon by the First Department since, with those judges failing to notify the proper authorities of what they found as required by their Judicial Cannons for now several years. Instead choosing to conceal and bury away their findings of Conflicts of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety, in order instead to cover up the crimes discovered and confirmed against senior members of the courts and the disciplinary agencies.

6. The very real, non-frivolous and meritorious fact that Anderson has won in court her claim that her First Amendment Rights to Free Speech were violated in attempting to expose the corruptions.

7. The very real, non-frivolous and meritorious Conflicts of Interest that act to block Due Process by creating Felonious State and Federal Obstruction of Justice. Obstruction that exists in both the Anderson lawsuit and this Lawsuit created by the New York Attorney General acting in Violation of Law through ILLEGAL representation of the accused Public Officials he is obligated by his Public Office duties to investigate.

NY Executive Law: § 63. General duties. The attorney-general shall:

1. Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state is interested, and have charge and control of all the legal business of the departments and bureaus of the state, or of any office thereof which requires the services of attorney or counsel, in order to protect the interest of the state…

The NYAG instead of advising their state defendant clients to get counsel due to the Conflict of Interest and Legal Obligations to Protect the Public instead has failed to do anything but put up a SHAM defense in Federal Court to protect the accused, failing Honest Service duties to the Public by conflicting their offices from prosecuting allegations of Whistleblowers and more against Public Officials through illegal representations and more and failing, including but not limited to,

Public Officers Rule 17 2(b)

(b) Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the employee shall be entitled to be represented by the attorney general, provided, however, that the employee shall be entitled to representation by private counsel of his choice in any civil judicial proceeding whenever the attorney general determines based upon his investigation and review of the facts and circumstances of the case that representation by the attorney general would be inappropriate, or whenever a court of competent jurisdiction, upon appropriate motion or by a special proceeding, determines that a conflict of interest exists and that the employee is entitled to be represented by private counsel of his choice.

8. In fact, this conflict is further insipid in that it entirely blocks investigation by the NY AG for CRIMINAL FELONY ACTS now alleged by Whistleblower Anderson in riveting testimony in US Federal Court, before the NY Senate Judiciary Committee and in Sworn Statements, whereby NY AG Andrew Cuomo’s Office is wholly aware of these allegations against their client defendants but cannot investigate those they are already representing. Thus, the NY AG should have brought in NON CONFLICTED CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS to handle the allegations that the NY AG is unable to investigate due to its conflicts and involvement as defendant in many of the related cases to Anderson. This block acts thus OBSTRUCTS JUSTICE through CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE RULES & REGULATIONS and LAW and must stop. Since certain members of this Court and certain members of the US District Court have failed to stop the illegal representation, even after repeated requests and full notification, it becomes apparent that members of this Court and members of the US District Court have aided and abetted this RICO and Antitrust Criminal Organization.

9. There are very real and non-frivolous Conflicts of Interest in this case on Appeal before this Court, deemed “SUBSTANTIVE” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, again very real and all very factual Conflicts of Interest, no frivolity here and factually, the case allowed to proceed without first removing the conflicts, thus blocking due process and procedure.

10. Nicole Corrado Threats to a Federal Witness by Public Officials

11. Ongoing Patent Suspensions and Investigations

12. Ongoing New York Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings whereby investigations by the Committee have led to formation of Task Force according to Chairman, Hon. Senator John L. Sampson

13. Ongoing House and Senate Judiciary Committee Investigations

14. Other Related cases all with similar claims and all matching Anderson’s general allegations.

15. Car Bomb

16. Officials of This Court refusal to stop ILLEGAL representations of Iviewit Shareholders and Companies by P. Stephen Lamont and in fact ruling ILLEGALLY on those filings, also to be used as additional evidence to State and Federal Authorities of continued Criminal Activities within the Court.

What Is Frivolous

1. This Court and the US District Court’s Orders are all Frivolous. The Dismissal Order dated blah is frivolous and criminal, as is Scheindlin’s Dismissal Order dated August 08, 2008. Both tendered through violations of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes, Public Office Rules and Regulations and Law, serving only as further attempts to deny due process to my valid claims and further aid and abet those “favored lawyers and law firms” in concealing their crimes. All the while avoiding and attempting to CONCEAL material facts in the case before you, perhaps because Court Officials are steeped in the allegations and have very real conflict issues and other violations of law constituting FRAUD ON THIS COURT, by members of this Court, merely criminals in robes. Everything this Court transacts in these matters while failing to follow its own rules and law, to say the least is truly frivolous and at minimum Federal Felonies. As Criminal Authorities and Your Oversights are being formally petitioned to intercede in these in matters and determine if your illegal actions constitute grounds for criminal indictments and prosecution, I wish to halt the proceedings, again pending final resolution of the complaints levied already against this Court, see

SEC, FBI and Others Complaint

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=274

17. and for a signed color copy for your records, please print and incorporate in entirety by reference herein, the following URL http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf .

18. What is not Frivolous is that the Whistleblower case has not been completed and therefore how can this Court rush to Justice on a related case and attempt to Dismiss the case prior to completion of the related case?

This Court can therefore take this Motion to Kiss My Ass and More and shove it up Yours.

EXHIBIT 1 - CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS

Justices Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall and Debra Ann Livingston of the New York Second Circuit Court and Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe – Clerk of the Court

· March 02, 2010 Expose Corrupt Courts ~ Committee On Public Integrity Calls On Feds for Federal Monitor Over NY State Court System - “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.)

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2010/03/committee-calls-on-us-attorney-and-fbi.html

Justice Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court – Southern District of New York

The New York Attorney General ~ Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo

New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee ~ Roy Reardon, Alan Friedberg

March 05, 2010 Expose Corrupt Courts - Committee on Public Integrity Asks Governor David A. Paterson to Stop Funding State Ethics Committees and Order Immediate Performance Audits

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2010/03/committee-to-governor-paterson-turn.html

P. Stephen Lamont

whistleblower christine c. Anderson Related Crimes

New York Attorney General – Illegal Representation / Obstruction

First Department Obstructions and other Crimes

US Attorney – New York

New York District Attorney

New York Assistant District Attorney

Federal Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn

Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Virginia Attorney General, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel, Raymond Joao & Greenberg Traurig

The following CRIMINAL COMPLAINT contains complaints against Public Officials and others who are allegedly Violating Public Office Rules and Regulations, Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conducts Codes, State, Federal and International Laws. Many of those involved have been found violating public offices through Conflicts of Interest and more and therefore, prior to any action on these matters, all investigators or others involved in the procedural handling of these matters are requested to sign and return the attached Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form, prior to any action. In addition to the Federal Code Violations below, additional State, Federal and International have been violated in furtherance of a Criminal Conspiracy to commit not only Fraud against myself and Iviewit companies but Criminal Conspiracy to commit Fraud against the United States and Foreign Nations. For a list of Criminal Activities alleged and which all those complained of herein, have aided and abetted, please visit http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm . Note that the laws cited below and in referred link are not complete lists of the Criminal Acts, as due to the denials of due process and procedure in various venues the Criminal Acts continue to pile up daily, also adding new defendants.

Federal Laws violated, including but not limited to,

Conspiracy Against Rights, 18 U.S.C. § 241.

Section 241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law, 18 U.S.C. § 242.

This provision makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim. The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1503. Influencing or injuring officer or juror generally

(a) Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, endeavors to influence, intimidate, or impede any grand or petit juror, or officer in or of any court of the United States, or officer who may be serving at any examination or other proceeding before any United States magistrate judge or other committing magistrate, in the discharge of his duty, or injures any such grand or petit juror in his person or property on account of any verdict or indictment assented to by him, or on account of his being or having been such juror, or injures any such officer, magistrate judge, or other committing magistrate in his person or property on account of the performance of his official duties, or corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b). If the offense under this section occurs in connection with a trial of a criminal case, and the act in violation of this section involves the threat of physical force or physical force, the maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for the offense shall be the higher of that otherwise provided by law or the maximum term that could have been imposed for any offense charged in such case.

(b) The punishment for an offense under this section is—

(1) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;

(2) in the case of an attempted killing, or a case in which the offense was committed against a petit juror and in which a class A or B felony was charged, imprisonment for not more than 20 years, a fine under this title, or both; and

(3) in any other case, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, a fine under this title, or both.

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 73 > § 1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1506 Theft or alteration of record or process; false bail

Whoever acknowledges, or procures to be acknowledged in any such court, any recognizance, bail, or judgment, in the name of any other person not privy or consenting to the same—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1509 Obstruction of court orders

No injunctive or other civil relief against the conduct made criminal by this section shall be denied on the ground that such conduct is a crime.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1512 Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant.

(1) Whoever kills or attempts to kill another person, with intent to—

(A) prevent the attendance or testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(B) prevent the production of a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(C) prevent the communication by any person to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(2) Whoever uses physical force or the threat of physical force against any person, or attempts to do so, with intent to—

(A) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(B) cause or induce any person to—

(i) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(ii) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the integrity or availability of the object for use in an official proceeding;

(iii) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(iv) be absent from an official proceeding to which that person has been summoned by legal process; or

(C) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation, supervised release, parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

shall be punished as provided in paragraph (3).

(3) The punishment for an offense under this subsection is—

(A) in the case of a killing, the punishment provided in sections 1111 and 1112;

(B) in the case of—

(i) an attempt to murder; or

(ii) the use or attempted use of physical force against any person;

imprisonment for not more than 30 years; and

(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to—

(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;

(2) cause or induce any person to—

(A) withhold testimony, or withhold a record, document, or other object, from an official proceeding;

(B) alter, destroy, mutilate, or conceal an object with intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding;

(C) evade legal process summoning that person to appear as a witness, or to produce a record, document, or other object, in an official proceeding; or

(D) be absent from an official proceeding to which such person has been summoned by legal process; or

(3) hinder, delay, or prevent the communication to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States of information relating to the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

(d) Whoever intentionally harasses another person and thereby hinders, delays, prevents, or dissuades any person from—

(1) attending or testifying in an official proceeding;

(2) reporting to a law enforcement officer or judge of the United States the commission or possible commission of a Federal offense or a violation of conditions of probation [1] supervised release,,[1] parole, or release pending judicial proceedings;

(3) arresting or seeking the arrest of another person in connection with a Federal offense; or

(4) causing a criminal prosecution, or a parole or probation revocation proceeding, to be sought or instituted, or assisting in such prosecution or proceeding;

or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.

(f) For the purposes of this section—

(1) an official proceeding need not be pending or about to be instituted at the time of the offense; and

(2) the testimony, or the record, document, or other object need not be admissible in evidence or free of a claim of privilege.

(g) In a prosecution for an offense under this section, no state of mind need be proved with respect to the circumstance—

(h) There is extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over an offense under this section.

(k) Whoever conspires to commit any offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1514 Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness

(1) A United States district court, upon application of the attorney for the Government, shall issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case if the court finds, from specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a Federal criminal case exists or that such order is necessary to prevent and restrain an offense under section 1512 of this title, other than an offense consisting of misleading conduct, or under section 1513 of this title.

(2)

(A) A temporary restraining order may be issued under this section without written or oral notice to the adverse party or such party’s attorney in a civil action under this section if the court finds, upon written certification of facts by the attorney for the Government, that such notice should not be required and that there is a reasonable probability that the Government will prevail on the merits.

(B) A temporary restraining order issued without notice under this section shall be endorsed with the date and hour of issuance and be filed forthwith in the office of the clerk of the court issuing the order.

(C) A temporary restraining order issued under this section shall expire at such time, not to exceed 10 days from issuance, as the court directs; the court, for good cause shown before expiration of such order, may extend the expiration date of the order for up to 10 days or for such longer period agreed to by the adverse party.

(D) When a temporary restraining order is issued without notice, the motion for a protective order shall be set down for hearing at the earliest possible time and takes precedence over all matters except older matters of the same character, and when such motion comes on for hearing, if the attorney for the Government does not proceed with the application for a protective order, the court shall dissolve the temporary restraining order.

(E) If on two days notice to the attorney for the Government or on such shorter notice as the court may prescribe, the adverse party appears and moves to dissolve or modify the temporary restraining order, the court shall proceed to hear and determine such motion as expeditiously as the ends of justice require.

(F) A temporary restraining order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of such order, be specific in terms, and describe in reasonable detail (and not by reference to the complaint or other document) the act or acts being restrained.

(b)

(1) A United States district court, upon motion of the attorney for the Government, shall issue a protective order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a Federal criminal case if the court, after a hearing, finds by a preponderance of the evidence that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a Federal criminal case exists or that such order is necessary to prevent and restrain an offense under section 1512 of this title, other than an offense consisting of misleading conduct, or under section 1513 of this title.

(2) At the hearing referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, any adverse party named in the complaint shall have the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

(3) A protective order shall set forth the reasons for the issuance of such order, be specific in terms, describe in reasonable detail (and not by reference to the complaint or other document) the act or acts being restrained.

(4) The court shall set the duration of effect of the protective order for such period as the court determines necessary to prevent harassment of the victim or witness but in no case for a period in excess of three years from the date of such order’s issuance. The attorney for the Government may, at any time within ninety days before the expiration of such order, apply for a new protective order under this section.

(1) the term “harassment” means a course of conduct directed at a specific person that—

(A) causes substantial emotional distress in such person; and

(B) serves no legitimate purpose; and

(2) the term “course of conduct” means a series of acts over a period of time, however short, indicating a continuity of purpose.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1515 Definitions for certain provisions; general provision

(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section—

(1) the term “official proceeding” means—

(A) a proceeding before a judge or court of the United States, a United States magistrate judge, a bankruptcy judge, a judge of the United States Tax Court, a special trial judge of the Tax Court, a judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims, or a Federal grand jury;

(B) a proceeding before the Congress;

(D) a proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of any person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce;

(2) the term “physical force” means physical action against another, and includes confinement;

(3) the term “misleading conduct” means—

(A) knowingly making a false statement;

(B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement;

(C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity;

(D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is misleading in a material respect; or

(E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead;

(4) the term “law enforcement officer” means an officer or employee of the Federal Government, or a person authorized to act for or on behalf of the Federal Government or serving the Federal Government as an adviser or consultant—

(A) authorized under law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of an offense; or

(B) serving as a probation or pretrial services officer under this title;

(5) the term “bodily injury” means—

(A) a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or disfigurement;

(B) physical pain;

(D) impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or

(E) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary; and

(6) the term “corruptly persuades” does not include conduct which would be misleading conduct but for a lack of a state of mind.

(b) As used in section 1505, the term “corruptly” means acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information.

(c) This chapter does not prohibit or punish the providing of lawful, bona fide, legal representation services in connection with or anticipation of an official proceeding.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 73 § 1519 Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 152 Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery.

A person who—

(1) knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court charged with the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a case under title 11, from creditors or the United States Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;

(2) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11;

(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11;

(4) knowingly and fraudulently presents any false claim for proof against the estate of a debtor, or uses any such claim in any case under title 11, in a personal capacity or as or through an agent, proxy, or attorney;

(5) knowingly and fraudulently receives any material amount of property from a debtor after the filing of a case under title 11, with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11;

(6) knowingly and fraudulently gives, offers, receives, or attempts to obtain any money or property, remuneration, compensation, reward, advantage, or promise thereof for acting or forbearing to act in any case under title 11;

(7) in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under title 11 by or against the person or any other person or corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of his property or the property of such other person or corporation;

(8) after the filing of a case under title 11 or in contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor; or

(9) after the filing of a case under title 11, knowingly and fraudulently withholds from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court or a United States Trustee entitled to its possession, any recorded information (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of a debtor,

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 154 Adverse interest and conduct of officers.

A person who, being a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court—

(1) knowingly purchases, directly or indirectly, any property of the estate of which the person is such an officer in a case under title 11;

(2) knowingly refuses to permit a reasonable opportunity for the inspection by parties in interest of the documents and accounts relating to the affairs of estates in the person’s charge by parties when directed by the court to do so; or

(3) knowingly refuses to permit a reasonable opportunity for the inspection by the United States Trustee of the documents and accounts relating to the affairs of an estate in the person’s charge,

shall be fined under this title and shall forfeit the person’s office, which shall thereupon become vacant.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 157 Bankruptcy fraud.

A person who, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud and for the purpose of executing or concealing such a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so—

(1) files a petition under title 11, including a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petition under section 303 of such title;

(2) files a document in a proceeding under title 11, including a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petition under section 303 of such title; or

(3) makes a false or fraudulent representation, claim, or promise concerning or in relation to a proceeding under title 11, including a fraudulent involuntary bankruptcy petition under section 303 of such title, at any time before or after the filing of the petition, or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be pending under such title,

shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 9 § 158 Designation of United States attorneys and agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to address abusive reaffirmations of debt and materially fraudulent statements in bankruptcy schedules.

(a) In General.— The Attorney General of the United States shall designate the individuals described in subsection (b) to have primary responsibility in carrying out enforcement activities in addressing violations of section 152 or 157 relating to abusive reaffirmations of debt. In addition to addressing the violations referred to in the preceding sentence, the individuals described under subsection (b) shall address violations of section 152 or 157 relating to materially fraudulent statements in bankruptcy schedules that are intentionally false or intentionally misleading.

(b) United States Attorneys and Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.— The individuals referred to in subsection (a) are—

(1) the United States attorney for each judicial district of the United States; and

(2) an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for each field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

(c) Bankruptcy Investigations.— Each United States attorney designated under this section shall, in addition to any other responsibilities, have primary responsibility for carrying out the duties of a United States attorney under section 3057.

(d) Bankruptcy Procedures.— The bankruptcy courts shall establish procedures for referring any case that may contain a materially fraudulent statement in a bankruptcy schedule to the individuals designated under this section.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 11 § 201 Bribery of public officials and witnesses.

(a) For the purpose of this section—

(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b) Whoever—

(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A) to influence any official act; or

(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or

(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.

(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 11 § 225 Continuing financial crimes enterprise.

(a) Whoever—

(1) organizes, manages, or supervises a continuing financial crimes enterprise; and

(2) receives $5,000,000 or more in gross receipts from such enterprise during any 24-month period,

shall be fined not more than $10,000,000 if an individual, or $20,000,000 if an organization, and imprisoned for a term of not less than 10 years and which may be life.

(b) For purposes of subsection (a), the term “continuing financial crimes enterprise” means a series of violations under section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1032, or 1344 of this title, or section 1341 or 1343 affecting a financial institution, committed by at least 4 persons acting in concert.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 19 § 371 Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States.

If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 21 § 402 Contempts constituting crimes.

Any person, corporation or association willfully disobeying any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of any district court of the United States or any court of the District of Columbia, by doing any act or thing therein, or thereby forbidden, if the act or thing so done be of such character as to constitute also a criminal offense under any statute of the United States or under the laws of any State in which the act was committed, shall be prosecuted for such contempt as provided in section 3691 of this title and shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment, or both.

Such fine shall be paid to the United States or to the complainant or other party injured by the act constituting the contempt, or may, where more than one is so damaged, be divided or apportioned among them as the court may direct, but in no case shall the fine to be paid to the United States exceed, in case the accused is a natural person, the sum of $1,000, nor shall such imprisonment exceed the term of six months.

This section shall not be construed to relate to contempts committed in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice, nor to contempts committed in disobedience of any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command entered in any suit or action brought or prosecuted in the name of, or on behalf of, the United States, but the same, and all other cases of contempt not specifically embraced in this section may be punished in conformity to the prevailing usages at law.

For purposes of this section, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 31 § 641 Public money, property or records.

Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property in the aggregate, combining amounts from all the counts for which the defendant is convicted in a single case, does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

The word “value” means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.

TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 95 § 1959 Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity.

(a) Whoever, as consideration for the receipt of, or as consideration for a promise or agreement to pay, anything of pecuniary value from an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, or for the purpose of gaining entrance to or maintaining or increasing position in an enterprise engaged in racketeering activity, murders, kidnaps, maims, assaults with a dangerous weapon, commits assault resulting in serious bodily injury upon, or threatens to commit a crime of violence against any individual in violation of the laws of any State or the United States, or attempts or conspires so to do, shall be punished—

(1) for murder, by death or life imprisonment, or a fine under this title, or both; and for kidnapping, by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or a fine under this title, or both;

(2) for maiming, by imprisonment for not more than thirty years or a fine under this title, or both;

(3) for assault with a dangerous weapon or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than twenty years or a fine under this title, or both;

(4) for threatening to commit a crime of violence, by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine under this title, or both;

(5) for attempting or conspiring to commit murder or kidnapping, by imprisonment for not more than ten years or a fine under this title, or both; and

(6) for attempting or conspiring to commit a crime involving maiming, assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault resulting in serious bodily injury, by imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine of [1] under this title, or both. (b) As used in this section—

(1) “racketeering activity” has the meaning set forth in section 1961 of this title; and

(2) “enterprise” includes any partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity, which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.

While the laws stated above refer to new Defendants, whom will be added to all future litigations, in crimes committed to deny my due process and procedural rights, others in Public Office in New York have aided and abetted the crimes defined already herein through similar State and Federal Laws. Therefore, let this filing also serve as a Formal and Procedural Criminal Complaints against the following agencies and individuals named below. Evidence of the various violated codes provided with links to prior and ongoing complaints.

STATE LAW VIOLATIONS NEW YORK, VIRGINIA, FLORIDA and delaware

Criminal violations of NY Law by the Defendants in this action

Part 1

Proskauer Rose attorneys and Lamont(?) And others ____fill in__________________ initially committed the following crimes in order to obtain patent rights:

Their criminal liability is based on the following: (the complete text of mentioned laws is in appendix following)

§ 110.00 Attempt to commit a crime.

§ 20.00 Criminal liability for conduct of another.

§ 105.05 Conspiracy in the fifth degree.

§ 105.10 Conspiracy in the fourth degree.

§ 115.00 Criminal facilitation in the fourth degree.

The underlying crimes were:

§ 125.25 Murder in the second degree.

§ 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.

§ 135.60 Coercion in the second degree

§ 155.42 Grand larceny in the first degree.

§ 170.15 Forgery in the first degree.

§ 170.30 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree.

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

§ 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree.

§ 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

§ 200.04 Bribery in the first degree.

§ 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree.

§ 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office;

§ 210.15 Perjury in the first degree.

§ 210.45 Making a punishable false written statement.

§ 460.20 Enterprise corruption.

*******************************************

Part 2

The following public employees_________________ and the NY Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo, committed the following crimes in covering up and protecting the above mentioned criminals in the first paragraph:

§ 20.00 Criminal liability for conduct of another.

§ 105.05 Conspiracy in the fifth degree.

§ 105.10 Conspiracy in the fourth degree.

§ 115.00 Criminal facilitation in the fourth degree.

The underlying crimes were:

§ 125.25 Murder in the second degree.

§ 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.

§ 135.60 Coercion in the second degree

§ 155.42 Grand larceny in the first degree.

§ 170.15 Forgery in the first degree.

§ 170.30 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree.

§ 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree.

§ 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

§ 210.15 Perjury in the first degree.

§ 460.20 Enterprise corruption.

And they in addition committed the following crimes as public officers:

§ 195.00 Official misconduct.

§ 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree.

§ 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree.

*********************************************************8

Part 3

Andrew Cuomo in addition to the above crimes in Part 2 violated Executive Law § 63. General duties.

Also, Andrew Cuomo violated Public Officer Law:

§ 74. Code of ethics.

2. Rule with respect to conflicts of interest.

No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or engage in any business or transaction or professional activity or incur

any obligation of any nature, which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of his duties in the public interest.

3. Standards.

a. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should accept other employment which will impair his independence of judgment in the exercise of his official duties.

d. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should use or attempt to use his or her official position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or herself or others, including but not limited to, the misappropriation to himself, herself or to others of the property, services or other resources of the state for private business or other compensated non-governmental purposes.

e. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should engage in any transaction as representative or agent of the state with any business entity in which he has a direct or indirect financial interest that might reasonably tend to conflict with the proper discharge of his official duties.

f. An officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should not by his conduct give reasonable basis for the impression that any person can improperly influence him or unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or that he is affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any party or person.

h. An officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee should endeavor to pursue a course of conduct which will not raise suspicion among the public that he is likely to be engaged in acts that are in violation of his trust.

**********************************************************

Appendix of applicable NY Laws

§ 20.00 Criminal liability for conduct of another.

When one person engages in conduct which constitutes an offense, another person is criminally liable for such conduct when, acting with the mental culpability required for the commission thereof, he solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids such person to engage in such conduct.

§ 105.05 Conspiracy in the fifth degree.

A person is guilty of conspiracy in the fifth degree when, with intent that conduct constituting:

1. a felony be performed, he agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct; or

2. a crime be performed, he, being over eighteen years of age, agrees with one or more persons under sixteen years of age to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct.

Conspiracy in the fifth degree is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 105.10 Conspiracy in the fourth degree.

A person is guilty of conspiracy in the fourth degree when, with intent that conduct constituting:

1. a class B or class C felony be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct;

2. a felony be performed, he or she, being over eighteen years of age, agrees with one or more persons under sixteen years of age to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct;

§ 110.00 Attempt to commit a crime.

A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime when, with intent to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime.

§ 115.00 Criminal facilitation in the fourth degree.

A person is guilty of criminal facilitation in the fourth degree when, believing it probable that he is rendering aid:

1. to a person who intends to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which provides such person with means or opportunity for the commission thereof and which in fact aids such person to commit a felony;

A person is guilty of murder in the second degree when:

1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person or of a third person; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, it is an affirmative defense that:

(a) The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the first degree or any other crime; or

(b) The defendant's conduct consisted of causing or aiding, without the use of duress or deception, another person to commit suicide.

Nothing contained in this paragraph shall constitute a defense to a prosecution for, or preclude a conviction of, manslaughter in the second degree or any other crime; or

2. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person; or

3. Acting either alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape in the first degree, criminal sexual act in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse, escape in the first degree, or escape in the second degree, and, in the course of and in furtherance of such crime or of immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant, if there be any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants; except that in any prosecution under this subdivision, in which the defendant was not the only participant in the underlying crime, it is an affirmative defense that the defendant:

(a) Did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and

(b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law-abiding persons; and

(c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance; and

(d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury; or

4. Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, and being eighteen years old or more the defendant recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury or death to another person less than eleven years old and thereby causes the death of such person; or

5. Being eighteen years old or more, while in the course of committing rape in the first, second or third degree, criminal sexual act in the first, second or third degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the first, second, third or fourth degree, or incest in the first, second or third degree, against a person less than fourteen years old, he or she intentionally causes the death of such person.

Murder in the second degree is a class A-I felony.

§ 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.

A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:

1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he

causes the death of such person or of a third person; or

2. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the

death of such person or of a third person under circumstances which do

not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme

emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision one of

section 125.25. The fact that homicide was committed under the influence

of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance

reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree and need not be

proved in any prosecution initiated under this subdivision; or

3. He commits upon a female pregnant for more than twenty-four weeks

an abortional act which causes her death, unless such abortional act is

justifiable pursuant to subdivision three of section 125.05; or

4. Being eighteen years old or more and with intent to cause physical

injury to a person less than eleven years old, the defendant recklessly

engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of serious physical injury

to such person and thereby causes the death of such person.

Manslaughter in the first degree is a class B felony.

§ 135.60 Coercion in the second degree.

A person is guilty of coercion in the second degree when he or she

compels or induces a person to engage in conduct which the latter has a

legal right to abstain from engaging in, or to abstain from engaging in

conduct in which he or she has a legal right to engage, or compels or

induces a person to join a group, organization or criminal enterprise

which such latter person has a right to abstain from joining, by means

of instilling in him or her a fear that, if the demand is not complied

with, the actor or another will:

1. Cause physical injury to a person; or

2. Cause damage to property; or

3. Engage in other conduct constituting a crime; or

4. Accuse some person of a crime or cause criminal charges to be

instituted against him or her; or

5. Expose a secret or publicize an asserted fact, whether true or

false, tending to subject some person to hatred, contempt or ridicule;

6. Cause a strike, boycott or other collective labor group action

injurious to some person's business; except that such a threat shall not

be deemed coercive when the act or omission compelled is for the benefit

of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or

7. Testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information

with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or

8. Use or abuse his or her position as a public servant by performing

some act within or related to his or her official duties, or by failing

or refusing to perform an official duty, in such manner as to affect

some person adversely; or

9. Perform any other act which would not in itself materially benefit

the actor but which is calculated to harm another person materially with

respect to his or her health, safety, business, calling, career,

financial condition, reputation or personal relationships.

Coercion in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 155.42 Grand larceny in the first degree.

A person is guilty of grand larceny in the first degree when he steals

property and when the value of the property exceeds one million dollars.

Grand larceny in the first degree is a class B felony.

§ 170.15 Forgery in the first degree.

A person is guilty of forgery in the first degree when, with intent to

defraud, deceive or injure another, he falsely makes, completes or

alters a written instrument which is or purports to be, or which is

calculated to become or to represent if completed:

1. Part of an issue of money, stamps, securities or other valuable

instruments issued by a government or governmental instrumentality; or

2. Part of an issue of stock, bonds or other instruments representing

interests in or claims against a corporate or other organization or its

property.

Forgery in the first degree is a class C felony.

§ 170.30 Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree.

A person is guilty of criminal possession of a forged instrument in

the first degree when, with knowledge that it is forged and with intent

to defraud, deceive or injure another, he utters or possesses any forged

instrument of a kind specified in section 170.15.

Criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree is a

class C felony.

§ 175.10 Falsifying business records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree

when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second

degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit

another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.

Falsifying business records in the first degree is a class E felony.

§ 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree.

A person is guilty of tampering with public records in the first

degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone

entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes,

mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters

any record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or

otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.

Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D felony.

§ 175.35 Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree.

A person is guilty of offering a false instrument for filing in the

first degree when, knowing that a written instrument contains a false

statement or false information, and with intent to defraud the state or

any political subdivision, public authority or public benefit

corporation of the state, he offers or presents it to a public office,

public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation with the

knowledge or belief that it will be filed with, registered or recorded

in or otherwise become a part of the records of such public office,

public servant, public authority or public benefit corporation.

Offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree is a class

E felony.

§ 195.00 Official misconduct.

A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to

obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit:

1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an

unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act

is unauthorized; or

2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon

him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.

Official misconduct is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 195.05 Obstructing governmental administration in the second degree.

A person is guilty of obstructing governmental administration when he

intentionally obstructs, impairs or perverts the administration of law

or other governmental function or prevents or attempts to prevent a

public servant from performing an official function, by means of

intimidation, physical force or interference, or by means of any

independently unlawful act, or by means of interfering, whether or not

physical force is involved, with radio, telephone, television or other

telecommunications systems owned or operated by the state, or a county,

city, town, village, fire district or emergency medical service or by

means of releasing a dangerous animal under circumstances evincing the

actor's intent that the animal obstruct governmental administration.

Obstructing governmental administration is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 200.04 Bribery in the first degree.

A person is guilty of bribery in the first degree when he confers, or

offers or agrees to confer, any benefit upon a public servant upon an

agreement or understanding that such public servant's vote, opinion,

judgment, action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant

will thereby be influenced in the investigation, arrest, detention,

prosecution or incarceration of any person for the commission or alleged

commission of a class A felony defined in article two hundred twenty of

the penal law or an attempt to commit any such class A felony.

Bribery in the first degree is a class B felony.

§ 200.12 Bribe receiving in the first degree.

A public servant is guilty of bribe receiving in the first degree when

he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any benefit from another person

upon an agreement or understanding that his vote, opinion, judgment,

action, decision or exercise of discretion as a public servant will

thereby be influenced in the investigation, arrest, detention,

prosecution or incarceration of any person for the commission or alleged

commission of a class A felony defined in article two hundred twenty of

the penal law or an attempt to commit any such class A felony.

Bribe receiving in the first degree is a class B felony.

§ 200.22 Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree.

A person is guilty of rewarding official misconduct in the first

degree when he knowingly confers, or offers or agrees to confer, any

benefit upon a public servant for having violated his duty as a public

servant in the investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, or

incarceration of any person for the commission or alleged commission of

a class A felony defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law

or the attempt to commit any such class A felony.

Rewarding official misconduct in the first degree is a class C felony.

§ 200.27 Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree.

A public servant is guilty of receiving reward for official misconduct

in the first degree when he solicits, accepts or agrees to accept any

benefit from another person for having violated his duty as a public

servant in the investigation, arrest, detention, prosecution, or

incarceration of any person for the commission or alleged commission of

a class A felony defined in article two hundred twenty of the penal law

or the attempt to commit any such class A felony.

Receiving reward for official misconduct in the first degree is a

class C felony.

§ 200.40 Bribe giving and bribe receiving for public office; definition

of term.

As used in sections 200.45 and 200.50, "party officer" means a person

who holds any position or office in a political party, whether by

election, appointment or otherwise

§ 210.15 Perjury in the first degree.

A person is guilty of perjury in the first degree when he swears

falsely and when his false statement (a) consists of testimony, and (b)

is material to the action, proceeding or matter in which it is made.

Perjury in the first degree is a class D felony.

§ 210.45 Making a punishable false written statement.

A person is guilty of making a punishable false written statement when

he knowingly makes a false statement, which he does not believe to be

true, in a written instrument bearing a legally authorized form notice

to the effect that false statements made therein are punishable.

Making a punishable false written statement is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 460.20 Enterprise corruption.

1. A person is guilty of enterprise corruption when, having knowledge

of the existence of a criminal enterprise and the nature of its

activities, and being employed by or associated with such enterprise,

he:

(a) intentionally conducts or participates in the affairs of an

enterprise by participating in a pattern of criminal activity; or

(b) intentionally acquires or maintains any interest in or control of

an enterprise by participating in a pattern of criminal activity; or

invests any proceeds derived from that conduct, or any proceeds derived

from the investment or use of those proceeds, in an enterprise.

2. For purposes of this section, a person participates in a pattern of

criminal activity when, with intent to participate in or advance the

affairs of the criminal enterprise, he engages in conduct constituting,

or, is criminally liable for pursuant to section 20.00 of this chapter,

at least three of the criminal acts included in the pattern, provided

that:

(a) Two of his acts are felonies other than conspiracy;

(b) Two of his acts, one of which is a felony, occurred within five

years of the commencement of the criminal action; and

3. For purposes of this section, the enterprise corrupted in violation

of subdivision one of this section need not be the criminal enterprise

by which the person is employed or with which he is associated, and may

be a legitimate enterprise.

Enterprise corruption is a class B felony.

Executive Law:

§ 63. General duties. The attorney-general shall:

1. Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state

is interested, and have charge and control of all the legal business of

the departments and bureaus of the state, or of any office thereof which

requires the services of attorney or counsel, in order to protect the

interest of the state, but this section shall not apply to any of the

military department bureaus or military offices of the state. No action

or proceeding affecting the property or interests of the state shall be

instituted, defended or conducted by any department, bureau, board,

council, officer, agency or instrumentality of the state, without a

notice to the attorney-general apprising him of the said action or

proceeding, the nature and purpose thereof, so that he may participate

or join therein if in his opinion the interests of the state so warrant.

2. Whenever required by the governor, attend in person, or by one of

his deputies, any term of the supreme court or appear before the grand

jury thereof for the purpose of managing and conducting in such court or

before such jury criminal actions or proceedings as shall be specified

in such requirement; in which case the attorney-general or his deputy so

attending shall exercise all the powers and perform all the duties in

respect of such actions or proceedings, which the district attorney

would otherwise be authorized or required to exercise or perform; and in

any of such actions or proceedings the district attorney shall only

exercise such powers and perform such duties as are required of him by

the attorney-general or the deputy attorney-general so attending. In all

such cases all expenses incurred by the attorney-general, including the

salary or other compensation of all deputies employed, shall be a county

charge.

3. Upon request of the governor, comptroller, secretary of state,

commissioner of transportation, superintendent of insurance,

superintendent of banks, commissioner of taxation and finance,

commissioner of motor vehicles, or the state inspector general, or the

head of any other department, authority, division or agency of the

state, investigate the alleged commission of any indictable offense or

offenses in violation of the law which the officer making the request is

especially required to execute or in relation to any matters connected

with such department, and to prosecute the person or persons believed to

have committed the same and any crime or offense arising out of such

investigation or prosecution or both, including but not limited to

appearing before and presenting all such matters to a grand jury.

4. Cause all persons indicted for corrupting or attempting to corrupt

any member or member-elect of the legislature, or the commissioner of

general services, to be brought to trial.

5. When required by the comptroller or the superintendent of public

works, prepare proper drafts for contracts, obligations and other

instruments for the use of the state.

6. Upon receipt thereof, pay into the treasury all moneys received by

him for debts due or penalties forfeited to the people of the state.

7. He may, on behalf of the state, agree upon a case containing a

statement of the facts and submit a controversy for decision to a court

of record which would have jurisdiction of an action brought on the same

case. He may agree that a referee, to be appointed in an action to which

the state is a party, shall receive such compensation at such rate per

day as the court in the order of reference may specify. He may with the

approval of the governor retain counsel to recover moneys or property

belonging to the state, or to the possession of which the state is

entitled, upon an agreement that such counsel shall receive reasonable

compensation, to be fixed by the attorney-general, out of the property

recovered, and not otherwise.

8. Whenever in his judgment the public interest requires it, the

attorney-general may, with the approval of the governor, and when

directed by the governor, shall, inquire into matters concerning the

public peace, public safety and public justice. For such purpose he may,

in his discretion, and without civil service examination, appoint and

employ, and at pleasure remove, such deputies, officers and other

persons as he deems necessary, determine their duties and, with the

approval of the governor, fix their compensation. All appointments made

pursuant to this subdivision shall be immediately reported to the

governor, and shall not be reported to any other state officer or

department. Payments of salaries and compensation of officers and

employees and of the expenses of the inquiry shall be made out of funds

provided by the legislature for such purposes, which shall be deposited

in a bank or trust company in the names of the governor and the

attorney-general, payable only on the draft or check of the

attorney-general, countersigned by the governor, and such disbursements

shall be subject to no audit except by the governor and the

attorney-general. The attorney-general, his deputy, or other officer,

designated by him, is empowered to subpoena witnesses, compel their

attendance, examine them under oath before himself or a magistrate and

require that any books, records, documents or papers relevant or

material to the inquiry be turned over to him for inspection,

examination or audit, pursuant to the civil practice law and rules. If a

person subpoenaed to attend upon such inquiry fails to obey the command

of a subpoena without reasonable cause, or if a person in attendance

upon such inquiry shall, without reasonable cause, refuse to be sworn or

to be examined or to answer a question or to produce a book or paper,

when ordered so to do by the officer conducting such inquiry, he shall

be guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall be the duty of all public officers,

their deputies, assistants and subordinates, clerks and employees, and

all other persons, to render and furnish to the attorney-general, his

deputy or other designated officer, when requested, all information and

assistance in their possession and within their power. Each deputy or

other officer appointed or designated to conduct such inquiry shall make

a weekly report in detail to the attorney-general, in form to be

approved by the governor and the attorney-general, which report shall be

in duplicate, one copy of which shall be forthwith, upon its receipt by

the attorney-general, transmitted by him to the governor. Any officer

participating in such inquiry and any person examined as a witness upon

such inquiry who shall disclose to any person other than the governor or

the attorney-general the name of any witness examined or any information

obtained upon such inquiry, except as directed by the governor or the

attorney-general, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

9. Bring and prosecute or defend upon request of the industrial

commissioner or the state division of human rights, any civil action or

proceeding, the institution or defense of which in his judgment is

necessary for effective enforcement of the laws of this state against

discrimination by reason of age, race, creed, color or national origin,

or for enforcement of any order or determination of such commissioner or

division made pursuant to such laws.

10. Prosecute every person charged with the commission of a criminal

offense in violation of any of the laws of this state against

discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin, in any

case where in his judgment, because of the extent of the offense, such

prosecution cannot be effectively carried on by the district attorney of

the county wherein the offense or a portion thereof is alleged to have

been committed, or where in his judgment the district attorney has

erroneously failed or refused to prosecute. In all such proceedings, the

attorney-general may appear in person or by his deputy or assistant

before any court or any grand jury and exercise all the powers and

perform all the duties in respect of such actions or proceedings which

the district attorney would otherwise be authorized or required to

exercise or perform.

11. Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in connection

with safeguarding and enforcing the state's remainder interest in any

trust which meets the requirements of subparagraph two of paragraph (b)

of subdivision two of section three hundred sixty-six of the social

services law.

12. Whenever any person shall engage in repeated fraudulent or illegal

acts or otherwise demonstrate persistent fraud or illegality in the

carrying on, conducting or transaction of business, the attorney general

may apply, in the name of the people of the state of New York, to the

supreme court of the state of New York, on notice of five days, for an

order enjoining the continuance of such business activity or of any

fraudulent or illegal acts, directing restitution and damages and, in an

appropriate case, cancelling any certificate filed under and by virtue

of the provisions of section four hundred forty of the former penal law

or section one hundred thirty of the general business law, and the court

may award the relief applied for or so much thereof as it may deem

proper. The word "fraud" or "fraudulent" as used herein shall include

any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception,

misrepresentation, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false

promise or unconscionable contractual provisions. The term "persistent

fraud" or "illegality" as used herein shall include continuance or

carrying on of any fraudulent or illegal act or conduct. The term

"repeated" as used herein shall include repetition of any separate and

distinct fraudulent or illegal act, or conduct which affects more than

one person.

In connection with any such application, the attorney general is

authorized to take proof and make a determination of the relevant facts

and to issue subpoenas in accordance with the civil practice law and

rules. Such authorization shall not abate or terminate by reason of any

action or proceeding brought by the attorney general under this section.

13. Prosecute any person for perjury committed during the course of

any investigation conducted by the attorney-general pursuant to statute.

In all such proceedings, the attorney-general may appear in person or by

his deputy or assistant before any court or any grand jury and exercise

all the powers and perform all the duties necessary or required to be

exercised or performed in prosecuting any such person for such offense.

15. In any case where the attorney general has authority to institute

a civil action or proceeding in connection with the enforcement of a law

of this state, in lieu thereof he may accept an assurance of

discontinuance of any act or practice in violation of such law from any

person engaged or who has engaged in such act or practice. Such

assurance may include a stipulation for the voluntary payment by the

alleged violator of the reasonable costs and disbursements incurred by

the attorney general during the course of his investigation. Evidence of

a violation of such assurance shall constitute prima facie proof of

violation of the applicable law in any civil action or proceeding

thereafter commenced by the attorney general

Public Officer Law

§ 74. Code of ethics. 1. Definition. As used in this section: The term

"state agency" shall mean any state department, or division, board,

commission, or bureau of any state department or any public benefit

corporation or public authority at least one of whose members is

appointed by the governor or corporations closely affiliated with

specific state agencies as defined by paragraph (d) of subdivision five

of section fifty-three-a of the state finance law or their successors.

The term "legislative employee" shall mean any officer or employee of

the legislature but it shall not include members of the legislature.

2. Rule with respect to conflicts of interest. No officer or employee

of a state agency, member of the legislature or legislative employee

should have any interest, financial or otherwise, direct or indirect, or

engage in any business or transaction or professional activity or incur

any obligation of any nature, which is in substantial conflict with the

proper discharge of his duties in the public interest.

3. Standards.

a. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

or legislative employee should accept other employment which will impair

his independence of judgment in the exercise of his official duties.

b. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

or legislative employee should accept employment or engage in any

business or professional activity which will require him to disclose

confidential information which he has gained by reason of his official

position or authority.

c. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

or legislative employee should disclose confidential information

acquired by him in the course of his official duties nor use such

information to further his personal interests.

d. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

or legislative employee should use or attempt to use his or her official

position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for himself or

herself or others, including but not limited to, the misappropriation to

himself, herself or to others of the property, services or other

resources of the state for private business or other compensated

non-governmental purposes.

e. No officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

or legislative employee should engage in any transaction as

representative or agent of the state with any business entity in which

he has a direct or indirect financial interest that might reasonably

tend to conflict with the proper discharge of his official duties.

f. An officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

or legislative employee should not by his conduct give reasonable basis

for the impression that any person can improperly influence him or

unduly enjoy his favor in the performance of his official duties, or

that he is affected by the kinship, rank, position or influence of any

party or person.

g. An officer or employee of a state agency should abstain from making

personal investments in enterprises which he has reason to believe may

be directly involved in decisions to be made by him or which will

otherwise create substantial conflict between his duty in the public

interest and his private interest.

h. An officer or employee of a state agency, member of the legislature

or legislative employee should endeavor to pursue a course of conduct

which will not raise suspicion among the public that he is likely to be

engaged in acts that are in violation of his trust.

i. No officer or employee of a state agency employed on a full-time

basis nor any firm or association of which such an officer or employee

is a member nor corporation a substantial portion of the stock of which

is owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such officer or

employee, should sell goods or services to any person, firm, corporation

or association which is licensed or whose rates are fixed by the state

agency in which such officer or employee serves or is employed.

4. Violations. In addition to any penalty contained in any other

provision of law any such officer, member or employee who shall

knowingly and intentionally violate any of the provisions of this

section may be fined, suspended or removed from office or employment in

the manner provided by law. Any such individual who knowingly and

intentionally violates the provisions of paragraph b, c, d or i of

subdivision three of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty in

an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars and the value of any gift,

compensation or benefit received as a result of such violation. Any such

individual who knowingly and intentionally violates the provisions of

paragraph a, e or g of subdivision three of this section shall be

subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed the value of any

gift, compensation or benefit received as a result of such violation.

Attorney for Plaintiff Bernstein

Eliot Ivan Bernstein, Pro Se

2753 NW 34^th St.

Boca Raton, FL 33434

Tel.: (561) 245-8588

By: _________________________ Eliot Ivan Bernstein

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Docket No. 08-4873-cv

Bernstein

Appellate Division First Department

Disciplinary Committee

I, Eliot Ivan Bernstein, hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that on the 7th day of September, 2009, I served by United States Mail, Email, Electronic Service and/or hand delivered the document titled EMERGENCY MOTION TO KISS MY ASS AND MORE on the Court. Plaintiff requests this Court serve all named Defendants below via the United States Marshal Service or service directly by the Court as the case in prior filings where the Court has served to the Defendants, although it is further unclear if this Court has served documents to all Amended Complaint Defendants or just a select few Defendants. It is also unclear if Defendants’ counsels similarly have serviced only select Defendants’ and not all the Amended Complaint Defendants and Plaintiffs on Appeal despite referencing the Amended Complaint in their Appeal.

Plaintiff requested the Halting of the Case and the Sealing of this Motion and Plaintiff requests that Motions remain sealed until all Oversight authorities summoned in the Motion to Compel filed previously and/or herein have rendered final decisions on the Court and Defendants’ counsels ability to proceed. Therefore, Plaintiff requests not servicing Defendants the requested sealed documents until such time that affirmed Non-Conflicted justices, court personnel and counsel, as requested in the Motion to Compel and herein, are authorized by Oversight and Law Enforcement to continue to operate illegally and outside of the Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes, Public Office Rules and Regulations and Law.

To be added New Defendants in the RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit through amendment or in any anticipated future litigations and criminal filings:

Eliot Ivan Bernstein,

_______________________

Pro Se Appellant and Plaintiff

2753 N.W. 34th Street

Boca Raton, Florida 33434

(561) 245-8588

[1]January 05, 2010 2^nd Circuit Dismissal of Appeal http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20100109%20US%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Denial%20of%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20and%20Appeal.pdf

[2] September 08, 2009 Motion to Compel @ http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=78 (interactive version) and, Signed Copy of Motion to Compel @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf

[3] November 16, 2009 Anderson Motion for Rehearing @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091116%20Anderson%20Motion%20Rehearing%20Cuomo%20Conflicts.pdf

[4]http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20100109%20US%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Denial%20of%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20and%20Appeal.pdf

[5] June 08, 2009 Judiciary Committee Hearing with link to Whistleblower Anderson Testimony, Anderson is the second speaker @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded

and

October 27, 2009 Filing with US District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin @ http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20091027%20Scheindlin%20Letter%20Regarding%20Anderson%20Criminal%20Elements%20Low.pdf

and

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=209 whereby Exhibit 2 at the URL contains Anderson’s sworn statements

[6] Patents have filed in multiple foreign nations fraudulently, see Iviewit homepage for complete listing of Intellectual Properties @ www.iviewit.tv and for a complete listing of International Criminal Codes Violated as alleged in my FEDERAL RICO AND ANTITRUST LAWSUIT @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm

Canto VIII ~ Dropping Like Flies

Eliot’s Uprising – The Thought Journal, a New Path for our Children

Fun Documents to Read

2010 Updated

1	09 522 721 Filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office claiming that per the direction of Harry I. Moatz, Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, Iviewit & Crossbow Ventures were seeking the Commissioner of Patents to suspend the Iviewit patents based on evidence of Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit former Intellectual Property attorneys, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Raymond Anthony Joao, Foley & Lardner, William J. Dick, Douglas Boehm, Steven Becker, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Thomas Coester, Norman Zafman, Farzahd Ahmini, Christopher & Weisberg PA, Krishna Narine, Andrew Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway and others. This led to the Commissioner of Patents suspending certain of the Iviewit patent applications into an infinite black hole. The form also included inventor change forms which have gone wholly unresolved while patents are in black hole at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.'
2	March 10, 1900 to March 10, 2020. These are dates on fax headers on a patent filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office on a Patent Application Oath & Declaration filed by Raymond Joao. This application is a fraud and the fax headers on the page are part of the explanation. Both fax machines' dates were changed to look like March 10, 2000 but instead come out as 3/10/1900 and 3/10/2020. This application also is entirely different than the application signed by the inventors.
3	1997 07 Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose starts MPEGLA LLC patent pool while at Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf and Schlissel.
4	August 08 1997 MPEGLA - note they claim to have Department of Justice approval although the DOJ claims they have no such approval.
5	1998 12 29 IVIEWIT BIZ PLAN
6	1999 01 08 Christopher Wheeler of Proskauer Rose letter regarding delaying getting back to inventor Bernstein after receiving patent disclosures.
7	1999 01 15 Proskauer letter regarding Iviewit Corporation a company that disappears although bills are generated through it.
8	1999 01 15 Proskauer letter regarding Iviewit Corporation, a company that does not exist or perhaps it is another Proskauer owned entity involved in theft of the patents through a complex shell game with identically named and similarly named companies
9	1999 01 28 Letter from Iviewit to Albert Gortz of Proskauer Rose asking why Kenneth Rubenstein was not at Proskauer Rose as was told to Iviewit Shareholders and instead was found to be at Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel.
10	1999 02 17 - Interactive Week article where Intel engineers are quoted as stating the Internet, at speeds under 1.5Mbps, would be text based with banners, no video or imaging of quality at the lower bandwidths.
11	1999 02 18 Christopher Wheeler letter regarding Proskauer and Kenneth Rubenstein review of patents. Rubenstein is patent expert reviewing the patents for patentability.
12	1999 02 18 Christopher Wheeler of Proskauer letter regarding Kenneth Rubenstein review of patents.
13	1999 02 22 Raymond Joao Patent Application before he says he knows Iviewit, Joao said he filed in March although it was supposed to be in January this application is missing from his bills and is in February.
14	1999 02 22 Raymond Joao patent application before he says he knows Iviewit, Joao bills for patent in March stating he is working on application. Yet, the filing card shows it was sent in 2/99.
15	1999 02 PATENT FILING RECEIPT - JOAO SAYS HE DOES NOT FILE ANYTHING UNTIL MARCH!
16	1999 03 02 Kenneth Rubenstein letter to inventor Bernstein regarding how to do patents. Rubenstein states in deposition that he does not know Bernstein, never spoke with him and that he knew nothing about the inventions.
17	1999 04 16 - Christopher Wheeler gets a CD with full screen video disclosure and in his deposition he states that at this time he was unaware of full screen video inventions. Note how Wheeler tries to constantly scramble attachments.
18	1999 04 16 Proskauer and Wheeler get info for full screen video invention. Wheeler in deposition states he did not know of video invention prior to Real3D meeting. This indicates he had seen the videos and retained cd's with the inventions on them.
19	1999 04 26 NDA - Goldman Sachs - Jeffrey Friedstein & Donald Kane.
20	1999 04 26 Proskauer opinion letter for Hassan Miah and Earthlink investors Sky Dylan Dayton and Kevin O'Donnell. Wheeler sends the opinion to Richard Rosman, Esq. Wheeler states in deposition that Proskauer never reviewed the Iviewit patents and never made any opinions. The patent guy Miah refers to is Kenneth Rubenstein and Miah is from Xing and former fame for role in CAA/Intel Multimedia Lab responsible for bringing multimedia to prior text based Internet.
21	1999 04 27 Richard D. Rosman, Esq. letter to Christopher C. Wheeler of Proskauer Rose, Hassan Miah wants to speak to Kenneth Rubenstein, the Iviewit patent attorney, thinks he knows from MPEG.
22	1999 04 27 Rosman to Wheeler letter showing Hassan wants opinion of Proskauer's Rubenstein who he knows from MPEGLA, Wheeler sends a Proskauer opinion stating their retained counsel finds it to be novel and patentable. Wheeler lies under deposition and to Florida Bar stating he does not know anything about the technologies and never opined.
23	1999 04 27 Proskauer patent opinion.
24	1999 05 14 Real 3D deal.
25	1999 05 24 Real 3D meeting.
26	1999 05 30 Miah letter asking to email Iviewit patent counsel Rubenstein some questions.
27	1999 05 30 Miah Letter requesting to talk with Kenneth Rubenstein.
28	1999 06 01 Donald G. Kane, Iviewit Board member and member of Goldman Sachs, letter on structuring the companies.
29	1999 06 01 Hassan Miah letter forwarded to Rubenstein.
30	1999 06 03 Joao patent filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office with a blanked out date. This document is later submitted to Japanese Patent Office and they reject the document.
31	1999 06 09 - Armstrong Hirsh Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer letter to Wheeler confirming Proskauer and Rubenstein patent opinion for Armstrong Hirsh investors. This wholly contradicts Wheeler and Rubenstein depositions that Proskauer did no patent work or opinions
32	1999 06 11 Wheeler hand notes regarding meeting with Intel, Silicon Graphics, Inc. and Lockheed Martin at Real 3D Inc. States disclosure of video and imaging inventions
33	1999 06 18 Proskauer bill for Iviewit Corporation, a company that does not exist, we think
34	1999 06 24 Lewin letter to Wheeler regarding his conflict of interests with Visual Data. Visual Data was an early violator of their NDA and when we found out we also found out that Lewin had undisclosed conflict.
35	1999 06 24 Lewin and Wheeler regarding conflict of interest with Proskauer and Goldstein Lewin client Visual Data. Wheeler failed to disclose they were a client of his and then after signing an NDA Visual Data begins using the Iviewit process without authorization.
36	1999 06 30 - Gerald Stanley CEO of Real 3D (Intel, SGI and Lockheed) opinion on the technologies.
37	1999 06 30 Real 3D Opinion and Licensing Info - We start to see evidence of companies we never heard of. Now there appears an Iviewit LLC and an Iviewit.com LLC.
38	1999 07 19 Armstrong Hirsh Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer letter to Wheeler at Proskauer asking why NDA's are in iviewit inc. a company they have no stock in or anyone else.
39	1999 07 23 Proskauer Opinion Letter to Huizenga Holdings via Cris Branden. Another opinion on the technologies this time for Wheeler's client Wayne Huizenga for investment. Huizenga invested $500,000 based on this opinion and Wheeler claims in deposition he did not know about the technologies and never opined.
40	1999 09 08 Proskauer letter by Wheeler to Lewin for payment of bills after Huizenga funding. Wheeler in deposition states payments were not based on funding, this letter appears to be a fraud.
41	1999 09 08 Proskauer Retainer almost one year after being retained, bogus document by Utley and Wheeler.
42	1999 09 20 Meeting with Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao, Brian Utley, Steven Filipek of Fish & Richardson PC. The meeting was in New York at Rubenstein's Office, yet Rubenstein denies even knowing us other than to refer Joao in his deposition. Filipek had questions regarding the patents he viewed, claiming they appeared to miss the invention.
43	1999 Not dated Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel Patent Portfolio.
44	1999 Brian Utley resume given to Iviewit by Wheeler (his best friend) showing false statements about his past. He conceals former patent theft attempt from his past employer Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. with Wheeler and William Dick and where Utley was fired with cause and the company was closed due to this attempted crime. Also, false claims of his academic career.
45	2.19.99 Proskauer Agreement with Jenex draft.
46	2000 03 09 Brian Utley writes letter to Raymond Joao, after Joao is thought to be writing patents wrong and possibly in his name. Decision is made to replace Joao with William Dick and Foley & Lardner LLP. Utley suddenly claims Joao patents have mistakes and major missing items. Good Guy - Bad Guy. Dick replaces Joao but instead of correcting Joao errors, wrong info and inventors, they further perpetuate the fraud.
47	2000 04 01 James Armstrong letter regarding Utley screwing up patents.
48	2000 04 11 Foley & Lardner - Invitation to Correct Defects patent filing.
49	2000 04 11 Foley & Lardner - Invitation to Correct Defects
50	2000 04 16 Iviewit letter to Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf and Schlissel to transfer patent docs to Foley & Lardner.
51	2000 05 11 - Foley & Lardner letter stating there are problems with Joao's patents. All patents are not assigned to Iviewit Holdings per patent office.
52	2000 05 11 Wachovia Securities letter from Foley & Lardner regarding the Iviewit patents and is found later to be wholly wrong regarding assignments and other issues according to information from the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
53	2000 05 11 Wachovia Securities letter from Foley & Lardner stating false information regarding assignments and missing inventions. False statements for a Wachovia Private Placement by Foley & Lardner, a securities fraud.
54	2000 05 19 Armstrong Hirsh Jackoway & Tyerman investor letters further showing Rubenstein as Patent advisor now with Dick aiding and abetting him versus Joao.
55	2000 05 25 Dr Christopher Taylor Consulting Agreement
56	2000 05 25 Dr Christopher Taylor Consulting Agreement
57	2000 06 06 Foley & Lardner request Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf and Schlissel and Joao files, claiming information is missing and not on file with the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
58	2000 06 06 Foley & Lardner requests Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel files, stating that Joao has not transferred all patent applications and files, Joao does not send a US application and tries to replace it with a PCT. Once caught he sends file 5865-10 which he replaces patent signed by Eliot, Jude and Zakirul with his initial provisional filing. This is the application with fax dates of 1900 and 2020 stamped on them.
59	2004 06 09 Copy to Eliot Spitzer of Paul Curran's investigation of Thomas Cahill, Chief Counsel of the First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, stemming from the conflicts of Cahill Rubenstein and Steven Krane and violations of public office.
60	2000 06 13 Foley & Lardner Patent Portfolio.
61	2000 06 22 PR News Ellen DeGeneres.
62	2000 06 23 iviewit.com unveils streaming video coverage
63	of the ELLEN DEGENERES ‘Americana 2000’
64	Comedy Tour at SHOWBIZ EXPO.
65
66	2000 07 07 Florida Sun Sentinel Article regarding Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein
67	2000 07 22 - Proskauer marketing letter to their clients regarding Iviewit technologies and Wheeler claims under deposition that he did not really know about the technology and thought Iviewit was a portal???
68	2000 07 24 Foley & Lardner Patent Portfolio.
69	2000 07 24 Letter from Foley and Larder stating Joao patents are defective and are missing key info and disclosures.
70	2000 07 25 Dr Christopher Taylor Milwaukee Engineering Video study showing Iviewit invention for video plays better than true full-screen video, very cool.
71	2000 07 25 Dr Christopher Taylor Report Iviewit Scaling Video Tests.
72	2000 07 25 Foley & Lardner attempting to switch Patent Portfolio after Iviewit learned of Utley Patents that were written without company authorization.
73	2000 07 25 Foley & Lardner Patent Portfolio.
74	2000 07 31 Taped Meeting Foley & Lardner where they are asked questions about the patents discovered in Utley's name and why the patents are not assigned, etc.
75	2000 07 31 Transcript of Meeting with Foley & Lardner and Board Members regarding finding patents in wrong names and assignees.
76	2000 07 Iviewit MTV license draft.
77	2000 08 02 Taped Foley & Lardner meeting part 2.
78	2000 08 02 Taped Foley & Lardner meeting part 2.
79	2000 08 02 Taped Meeting Foley & Lardner Part 1 busted stealing patents.
80	2000 08 02 Taped Meeting Foley & Lardner Part 2 busted stealing patents.
81	2000 08 03 Letter From Foley & Lardner, Doug Boehm, stating he filed patents with 10 minutes to filing and made some mistakes.
82	2000 08 04 Letter From James F. Armstrong finding math errors on Foley & Lardner filed patent applications.
83	2000 08 04 Taped Meeting Foley & Lardner Part 1.
84	2000 08 04 Taped Meeting Foley & Lardner Part 1 busted stealing patents.
85	2000 08 09 James F. Armstrong, Foley & Lardner Douglas Boehm letter regarding Foley patent errors that were supposed to be filed corrected but still were filed wrong. This was beginning to discovery that something was afoul with Foley, we had no idea the extent at the time.
86	2000 08 09 Douglas Boehm of Foley & Lardner letter to Iviewit regarding his math errors and tries to diffuse the glowing malpractice claim and blame the problem on Eliot for Foley's errors. He is an engineer.
87	2000 08 09 Foley & Lardner trying to explain how math and other errors were filed in once corrected patent applications.
88	2000 08 09 James Armstrong letter to Foley & Lardner regarding the errors in the patent filings.
89	2000 08 25 Wheeler sends to Rubenstein PATENT PORTFOLIO BINDERS, contradicts Rubenstein's entire deposition, Wheeler delivers these documents to attorney Selz, after Rubenstein was already caught perjuring himself.
90	2000 08 25 Wheeler sending to Rubenstein PATENT BINDER wholly contradicts Rubenstein Wheeler and Utley Depositions, Rubenstein claims he never received or saw Iviewit Patents ~ OUCH.
91	2000 08 29 Wachovia Securities letter to Chairman of the Board regarding having done their Due Diligence, Foley & Lardner states Iviewit Holdings, Inc. is owner and assignee of all patents. Patent office information from OED Director Moatz contradicts this. Also in taped meetings held, Foley then admits that not all patents are assigned. Foley materially misrepresents to Wachovia the status of the patents and fails to list a missing Joao application = securities fraud.
92	2000 08 29 Wachovia Securities letter to Simon Bernstein, Board Member, regarding investment due diligence.
93	2000 09 01 NEWS ARTICLE - Grabbing the Holy Grail of Digital Webcasting - Digital Webcast.
94	2000 09 05 Real 3D / Intel / RYJO letter warning of using Iviewit technologies in violation of Real 3D / Intel NDA, RYJO tries to steal concepts and get intellectual property in his name, aided and abetted by Proskauer, Brian Utley and Michael Reale who thought RYJO and Ryan Huisman had not signed an NDA. Proskauer drafted a license whereby Iviewit would license its technology from RYJO.
95	2000 09 08 Shareholder James Armstrong writes letter requesting to know where the patents assignments are and why they were not filed based on the taped meetings with Foley & Lardner.
96	2000 09 08 James Armstrong letter to the Iviewit Board asking why the assignments on the patents were not filed. This would be shareholder fraud.
97	2000 09 09 Bernstein and Douglas Boehm letters regarding bad math filed and other issues. Foley & Lardner busted here.
98	2000 09 09 Bernstein, Foley & Lardner letters pertaining to errors in the patents filed.
99	2000 09 18 - 60 233 344 - Utley Zoom and Pan Camera patent filing with his name on them, this contradicts Utley's deposition that he knows nothing about a camera patent application in his name, oops. Fraud on the patent office, fraud on Iviewit, compounded with perjury.
100	2000 09 20 Raymond Hersh, Iviewit CFO, letter to Arthur Andersen stating Erika Lewin, CPA and in-house Iviewit accountant was miffed at being accused of misleading auditors. When reviewing the work, she seriously misstates information to auditors to keep their scam hidden.
101	2000 09 20 Raymond Hersh to Arthur Andersen, Erika Lewin accused of misleading auditors on corporate structure, it turns out to be entirely true.
102	2000 09 IVIEWIT, INC. of Delaware - Proskauer Rose has a confidentiality for this company but no company exists in Delaware with this name, how Proskauer. This may be one of the fraudulent entities that Proskauer was stealing the patents through.
103	2000 09 IVIEWIT, INC. DEL PROSKAUER HAS CONFIDENTIALITY
104	2000 10 09 ARTHUR ANDERSEN letter regarding Proskauer having to provide proof of Iviewit Holdings owning Iviewit Technologies, to auditors which they never produce, instead going on a straight away course to destroy Iviewit and the records. The audit was being conducted on behalf of Crossbow Ventures, whereby the Small Business Administration made up 2/3 of Crossbow Ventures loans.
105	2000 10 09 Arthur Andersen letter requesting proof that Iviewit Holdings, Inc. is owned by shareholders, turns out several Iviewit Holdings, Inc. exist, unraveling a corporate shell game where the other Iviewit Holdings, Inc. are owned by Proskauer and have stolen patents as their assets.
106	2000 11 27 ARTHUR ANDERSEN letters and termination letter of Iviewit as a client in the middle of an audit being conducted for the largest investor Crossbow Ventures in the middle of the audit where they found all kinds of problems.
107	2000 11 27 Arthur Andersen termination of audit letter, terminates Iviewit after almost one year of audit, after accusing Erika Lewin of fraud and finding problems with the companies.
108	2000 11 30 Foley & Lardner attempting to switch Patent Portfolio 2.
109	2000 11 30 Foley & Lardner attempting to switch Patent Portfolio 3.
110	2000 11 30 Foley & Lardner Patent Portfolio with Utley listed as an inventor, this is after Utley was busted with patents in his name and Foley tries to now include these patents we found.
111	2000 11 30 Foley & Lardner Patent Portfolio with 57103-122 being two different patents. Foley's dockets get crazy as they try to adjust once caught in the fraud. Suddenly, Utley shows up on multiple patents, replacing the original inventors and has two patents in his own name. All of this was never disclosed to shareholders, etc.
112	2000 11 30 Foley & Lardner Patent Portfolio with 57103-122 twice and different patents.
113	2000 11 30 Portfolio page from Foley & Lardner does not match up and is missing now the 120 filing.
114	2000 12 20 Letter to Utley asking why invention applications are missing from patents and to modify Patents to include all things missing.
115	2000 12 21 John D. Calkins, Senior Vice President New Media Business Development, Warner Bros. letter showing Utley sending Warner Bros. the Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum.
116	2000 12 NEWS RELEASE - Digital Webcast Article on Iviewit part2.
117	2000 Foley & Lardner Patent Portfolio Missing Dates - Utley busted and patents start showing up on fraudulent dockets.
118	2000 Iviewit income producing accounts for Encoding and Streaming licenses.
119	2000 Jorge Labarga's part in the Bush v. Gore presidential election fraud. There goes America.
120	2001 01 01 - Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer's biography in the Wachovia Securities Private Placement Memorandum and listed as Iviewit PATENT COUNSEL & BOARD DIRECTOR, this wholly contradicts Rubenstein, Wheeler & Utley depositions.
121	2001 01 01 Rubenstein listed in Wachovia Private Placement as patent counsel and board director, contradicts his entire deposition.
122	2001 01 01 Brian Utley fraudulent resume in the Wachovia Securities Private Placement Memorandum containing materially false and misleading claims about his former employment where he was caught stealing patents with none other than William J. Dick and Christopher Wheeler
123	2001 01 01 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum - with bookmarks showing Rubenstein "Iviewit patent counsel" and retained intellectual property counsel
124	2001 01 01 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum Bookmarked
125	2001 01 17 Utley lists Kenneth Rubenstein as patent counsel for an SBA Compliance Request for Crossbow SBIC Loans. This completely contradicts Utley Rubenstein and Wheeler deposition statements whereby they claim Rubenstein was never an Advisor, patent counsel and that he was not on Board.
126	2001 01 17 Utley lists Kenneth Rubenstein as Board Director for SBA loan compliance documents and to Crossbow Ventures, this is contradicted in his deposition when he claims he never used Rubenstein as an advisor and Rubenstein had NOTHING to do with Iviewit, oops.
127	2001 01 22 Kenneth Rubenstein named as patent attorney in Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum
128	2001 01 Kenneth Rubenstein biography in the Wachovia Securities PPM and also listed as Iviewit PATENT Counsel.
129	2001 01 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum - with bookmarks in color.
130	2001 04 14 Brian Utley fingers Kenneth Rubenstein in the minutes of a Board Meeting calling him our advisor, this wholly contradicts his deposition statements whereby he claims Rubenstein was never an advisor. OOPS
131	2001 04 18 Brain Utley states in Board letter that Christopher Wheeler checked with Kenneth Rubenstein as an advisor to the Board, completely contradicting Utley Wheeler and Rubenstein depositions.
132	2001 04 18 Brian Utley writes letter to Board of Directors claiming that he checked with Rubenstein as an advisor to board. This contradicts Utley deposition statement that he never used Rubenstein as advisor, ouch.
133	2001 04 21 - James Armstrong letter regarding Brian Utley screwing up patents and company, right on the nose.
134	2001 05 04 Foley & Lardner letter to Brian Utley after he is fired, regarding the patents found in his name. This document is part of Foley & Lardner's attempt to try and make it look legitimate after being busted.
135	2001 05 08 - Board Meeting.doc
136	2001 06 07 Brian G. Utley police report full.
137	2001 06 07 Brian G. Utley police report, Embezzlement and Theft of Proprietary Systems
138	2001 06 12 - Book One NDA.
139	2001 06 12 - Book Three NDA.
140	2001 06 12 - Book Two NDA.
141	2001 06 12 - List of Confidentialities.
142	2001 06 25 - David J. Colter, Vice President Technology - Technological Operations Warner Bros. to Steve Case founder of AOLTW/WB regarding Eliot Bernstein and the Thought Journal.
143	2001 07 12 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman portfolio shows Brian G. Utley patents, suddenly after Utley and Foley are caught with patents in wrong places, BSTZ is retained and Foley & Lardner sends patent portfolios that contain all kinds of new patents with all kinds of screw ups.
144	2001 07 12 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman Patent Portfolio.
145	2001 07 13 Brian G. Utley police report embezzlement & theft leads to Utley returning stolen proprietary computers. Later discovered that computers were taken to New Jersey company owned partially by investor Tiedemann Prolow. Violates officer and director responsibilities and Utley's non-compete.
146	2001 07 17 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman Patent status report.
147	2001 07 26 - Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman Power of Attorney Revocation 2.
148	2001 07 26 - Power of Attorney Revocation.
149	2001 08 01 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman legal opinion and patent review revealing problems found.
150	2001 08 01 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman patent evaluation, showing Utley had patents in his own name that were not assigned or owned by company, completely contradicting Utley deposition statements. This is a majordomo f'up.
151	2001 08 01 Iviewit investor presentation for AOL with Aidan Foley as CEO.
152	2001 08 04 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman letter to Iviewit showing Utley on patents.
153	2001 08 04 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman letter to Iviewit showing Brian G. Utley on patents.
154	2001 08 29 - Irell & Manella bill for AOL license agreement they drafted.
155	2001 09 17 Jeffrey Friedstein of Goldman Sachs, Power of Attorney for Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman.
156	2001 09 18 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman requests Bernstein to sign a Power Of Attorney on behalf of Brian G. Utley, to remove him from applications he was found to be on. Evidence shows that patent filings were made with Utley in Japan by Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman after Utley was long gone, showing they continued the scam and played the good guy while furthering the crimes.
157	2001 12 10 Crossbow Ventures attempts to call loans.
158	2002 01 14 AOLTW / Warner Bros. letter stating they are using the Iviewit technologies in violation of their NDA!!!
159	2002 01 15 - AOLTW / Warner Bros. letter stating technologists checked with Kenneth Rubenstein who opined favorably on the Iviewit patents. This contradicts Rubenstein, Wheeler and Utley's statements under deposition and to the Florida Bar and the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee. REMEMBER, RUBENSTEIN STATES HE KNOWS NOTHING AND PROSKAUER NEVER OPINED OR DID PATENT WORK. ooooops
160	2002 01 15 AOLTW / Warner Bros. investment due diligence letter stating that Rubenstein opined favorably on the patents.
161	2002 01 15 AOLTW RUBENSTEIN OPINION
162	2002 01 15 AOLTW RUBENSTEIN OPINION comments
163	2002 03 19 - Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman Japanese Patent Office filing for an Utley patent after he was fired over one year and they were supposed to be removing him from patents. Iviewit did not discover this until US Investigations led to research in Japan and this is when BSTZ was further found to be part of the conspiracy. This evidences that BSTZ portfolios had false and misleading information regarding these patents.
164	2002 03 28 Anthony Frenden statement regarding stolen investor money and proprietary equipment. Also shows that they tried to bribe employees with stolen cash. Funds are believed to be investor funds including monies of the Small Business Administration.
165	2002 04 22 Raymond A. Joao News Article claiming Joao has ninety, yes 90, patents in his name, this article needs to be checked for accuracy to see if it is a true publication on that date.
166	2002 04 22 Raymond Joao Article Stating Joao has 90 patents in his name and showing his stolen Airplane Video patent concept, stolen from Iviewit.
167	2002 04 23 William Kasser, Iviewit bookkeeper letter to Eliot Bernstein regarding Goldstein Lewin accounting fraud on financial projections. This represents more securities fraud and accounting fraud.
168	2002 04 23 Kasser to Eliot regarding Lewin fraud on financial documents submitted to lenders.
169	2002 06 09 Patent Portfolio Compilation showing the Greenberg Traurig patent findings in comparison to what Iviewit patent attorneys prior had stated on their dockets.
170	2002 06 09 Patent Portfolio2.
171	2002 06 11 Iviewit letter for Harry Moatz of the United States Patent & Trademark Office titled "System and Method for fraud on USPTO" and chock full of evidence.
172	2002 06 11 System and Method for Fraud on USPTO.
173	2002 06 11 USPTO complaint filed as patent System & Method for Fraud on the USPTO.
174	2002 06 17 Joao timeline of events and analysis of his documents and the frauds committed.
175	2002 08 22 Brian G. Utley deposition, states all patents are assigned to Iviewit and no patents are in his name. Contradictory evidence = patents in his name and all patents not assigned - confirmed by USPTO and leading to patent suspensions by commissioner.
176	2002 08 22 Brain G. Utley deposition states Kenneth Rubenstein is not an advisor, nor has he ever used him - Contradicted by Utley himself sending patent documents to Rubenstein and naming him as an advisor to the Board and other evidence.
177	2002 08 23 Brian G. Utley deposition that states William J. Dick was the attorney that wrote patents into Utley's name at his former employer Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. which led to that business closing due to the thefts. Christopher Wheeler through Proskauer, set up the company where the Utley stolen patents were transferred. Wheeler lies to the Florida Bar and states he never did work for Brain Utley, then gets caught lying in his deposition. Writes apology for his perjury to the Florida Bar. All three of them failed to disclose the prior patent heist to anyone.
178	2002 08 23 Brian Utley deposition on Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. and the patent dispute he had over the stolen intellectual properties with his former employer.
179	2002 08 23 Brian G. Utley deposition statement stating Christopher Wheeler knew about Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. patent dispute. Wheeler while recommending Utley as President of Iviewit failed to disclose this little patent theft or that he was involved. William Dick never discloses his involvement when they bring him in to cover up Joao's crimes. The concealment and falsifying Utley's resume shows intent and that they were a prior criminal enterprise. Wheeler delivers Utley resume to the shareholders and completely fabricates Utley's past.
180	2002 08 23 Brian G. Utley deposition statement that William J. Dick never filed the patents for Diamond Turf Equipment but Dick, in his response the Virginia Bar, states he filed the patents in Utley's name to a company Christopher Wheeler at Proskauer had set up, Premiere Connection. The Virginia Bar despite being provided the evidence of such false statements fails to take action.
181	2002 08 23 Brain G. Utley deposition statement that he knew nothing about a Zoom and Pan Camera patent application. Contradictory evidence = Patent Application for Zoom and Pan on a Digital Camera filed in Utley's name without assignment to the company.
182	2002 08 23 Brian G. Utley deposition statement that there were patent disputes at Diamond Turf which he failed to put in his resume which led to his being fired by the owner Monte Friedkin and forcing the closure of Friedkin's company. Where Dick, Wheeler and Utley were all involved shows a criminal enterprise of patent thieves.
183	2002 08 23 Brian G. Utley deposition statement that Christopher Wheeler never represented him. Wheeler states that he did not ever represent Utley to the Florida Bar and then in deposition states that he formed a company for Utley. The reason they want to hide this corporate formation is that it is the company where the stolen patents from Diamond TE went
184	2002 08 23 Utley deposition states he did not graduate college, this contradicts his sworn statements in a Wachovia Private Placement that he said he did graduate college
185	2002 09 20 Greenberg Traurig Proposal Patents
186	2002 09 20 Greenberg Traurig Proposal Patents.
187	2002 10 16 Notice of Appeal on Jorge Labarga case.
188	2002 10 25 Kenneth Rubenstein sworn statement to Judge Jorge Labarga trying to get out of his deposition and claiming he does not know anything about Iviewit.
189	2002 10 25 Kenneth Rubenstein statement to Judge Jorge Labarga, complete false statements to avoid a deposition at his law firms lawsuit against Iviewit for a bill.
190	2002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein full deposition with Exhibits CERT. I KNOW NOTHING!
191	2002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein deposition regarding his being unsure a conflict check was done by Proskauer. This would have prevented MPEGLA from using the Iviewit processes disclosed to Rubenstein as Iviewit patent counsel, while he was a founder and patent counsel & reviewer for MPEGLA LLC
192	2002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein deposition statement that he does not have Iviewit patent documents = Contradictory evidence is a letter showing Christopher Wheeler sending him the entire Iviewit Patent Portfolio.
193	2002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition stating he does not know about the video inventions = Contradictory evidence shows that Wheeler was sent video invention disclosures and then later in his deposition he claims to have been at video disclosure meeting with Intel and Real3D engineers.
194	2002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition does not know about video invention.
195	2002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition regarding no conflicts check, neither him or Kenneth Rubenstein are sure a conflicts check was ever done.
196	2002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition statement that Iviewit was a portal, he didn't know about the technologies and that Proskauer was hired for portal services and not to patent the inventions. Contradictory evidence is overwhelming.
197	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that no Proskauer conflict of interest check was done.
198	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that Proskauer and Christopher Wheeler represented Brian G. Utley in the past. They failed to disclose that this former work by Proskauer and Wheeler was for a company where stolen patents went at Utley's former employer. Contradictory evidence = Wheeler's statements under deposition and to the Florida Bar that conflict, constituting perjury. Also, Utley states in deposition that Wheeler never did work for him. "Who's on first."
199	2002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition stating Proskauer never opined on the technologies or had anything to do with patents. Contradictory evidence = Wheeler/Proskauer patent opinions for the investors. Wachovia Private Placement showing Wheeler and Rubenstein on the Board of Directors and claiming Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer are retained patent counsel.
200	2003 01 11 Palm Beach Post Article stating Crossbow Ventures sold an Iviewit company! Problem -- Crossbow Ventures do not own the company to sell and failed to tell investors about it = securities fraud. Evidence shows that SBA loans were written down and then the securities were sold = fraud on the SBA.
201	2003 01 11 Palm Beach Post Article Crossbow Sells Iviewit.
202	2003 01 11 Palm Beach Post Article Crossbow Sells Iviewit2
203	2003 01 11 Palm Beach Post Article Crossbow Sells Iviewit2.
204	2003 01 28 Proskauer v. Iviewit, Judge Jorge Labarga, Counter Complaint was filed but Labarga refused it claiming attorneys that were initially found representing Iviewit with no authority basically waived any rights to such. It was not learned until much later that the suit involved fraudulent companies set up by Proskauer with stolen intellectual properties in them and that the suit was part of a scheme with a fraudulent federal bankruptcy filing, to seize the patents in a shell game.
205	2003 01 31 Eliot Bernstein deposition, this document is well worth the read as Eliot Bernstein deposes the deposition takers from Proskauer, note, Proskauer is continuously representing themselves in all lawsuits and all bar complaints.
206	2003 02 25 Raymond Joao 9th district original attorney misconduct complaint - somehow gets transferred to the wrong district, the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee for prosecution with the Proskauer attorney misconduct complaints, although Joao is registered elsewhere.
207	2003 02 26 Original attorney misconduct complaint against Proskauer and Kenneth Rubenstein filed at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
208	2003 02 26 Original Rubenstein Bar Action
209	2003 02 26 Original Florida Bar Complaint against Proskauer and Christopher Wheeler.
210	2003 03 20 Judge Jorge Labarga Court Order for Kenneth Rubenstein and Christopher Wheeler to return to take further deposition to answer previously unanswered questions that they tried to refuse to come back too after being caught lying and perjuring themselves in the first part. The trial is thrown before they can be deposed again.
211	2003 04 07 - Christopher Wheeler perjured statement to the Florida Bar regarding Brian G. Utley. Wheeler in a footnote in a response tries to minimize the extent of the lie he is caught in.
212	2003 04 07 - Christopher Wheeler perjured Florida Bar statement. Florida Bar while cognizant of the crime of perjury in an official proceeding fails to take any action, although Wheeler is caught beyond a reasonable doubt and apologizes for his lies in writing. Oh yeah, the President of the Florida Bar turns out to be Wheeler's brother, James Wheeler, underling at the law firm of Broad and Cassel and fails to disclose such while receiving documents from Iviewit to investigate.
213	2003 04 07 - Christopher Wheeler and Proskauer's response to the bar complaint which is tendered by Matthew Triggs of Proskauer who acted in violation of his public office with the Florida Supreme Court agency The Florida Bar.
214	2003 04 07 - Christopher Wheeler and Proskauer's response to The Florida Bar bar complaint which was tendered by Matthew Triggs of Proskauer who acted in conflict of interest and violation of public office with his Supreme Court of Florida Bar Position.
215	2003 04 08 Raymond Joao's response to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Joao actually tries to accuse Iviewit of stealing his inventions. Coocoo.
216	2003 04 08 Raymond Joao's response to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Joao actually tries to accuse Iviewit of stealing his inventions. Coocoo.
217	2003 04 11 - Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer's response to the bar complaint filed at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee authored by Proskauer Rose attorney Steven C. Krane, who acted in conflict of interest and violation of public offices with the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and also in violation of his role as former President of the NY Bar Association precluding him from handling any bar complaints within a one year blackout and where he had personal and professional interests he also violated his ethics. This sucks for like the guy who parades around as being an ethics leader, saddest day in the life of Socrates, rollin' in his grave.
218	2003 04 11 - Kenneth Rubenstein response authored by Proskauer attorney Steven C. Krane. Krane was former New York State Bar Association President and former law clerk to New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Krane was clerk for Chief Judge of New York, Judith Kaye who is also in conflict and abuse of public office as Kaye is married to a Porksour partner, who recently died, Stephen R. Kaye and Judith failed to take any actions when notified of the crimes in the courts she oversees!!!!!
219	2003 04 16 Supreme Court of New York First Department Disciplinary Committee regarding reply to Raymond Joao complaint.
220	2003 04 30 Eliot Bernstein / Iviewit response to Christopher Wheeler Florida Bar Complaint BOOKMARKED. Wheeler's response it is later learned was tendered by his partner Matthew Triggs who was prohibited from representing any bar complaints due to his official position with the Florida Bar'
221	2003 04 30 Eliot Bernstein / Iviewit response to Christopher Wheeler Florida Bar Complaint BOOKMARKED. Wheeler's response it is later learned was tendered by his partner Matthew Triggs who was prohibited from representing any bar complaints due to his official position with the Florida Bar. BOOKMARKED
222	2003 04 30 P. Stephen Lamont Rebuttal to Christopher Wheeler's response to the Florida Bar complaint filed against him. BOOKMARKED
223	2003 05 05 Florida Bar Receipt Filing
224	2003 05 06 Proskauer Florida Bar Receipt Filing
225	2003 05 23 Christopher Wheeler Admits Perjury and False Statements made to The Florida Bar in his response. Of course Triggs, acting in conflict and violation of public office makes the perjurious statement a footnote.
226	2003 05 23 Christopher Wheeler Admits Perjury and False Statements made to The Florida Bar in his response. Of course Triggs, acting in conflict and violation of public office makes the perjurious statement a footnote.
227	2003 05 23 Christopher Wheeler Response to Florida Bar Rebuttal 2, tendered by Matthew Triggs who acted in violation of his Florida Supreme Court Bar position in representing Wheeler.
228	2003 05 23 Wheeler Response to Rebuttal Partial
229	2003 05 26 Iviewit Rebuttal to Raymond Joao attorney misconduct complaint. 1753 Pages BOOKMARKED
230	2003 06 03 Iviewit Rebuttal to Wheeler 2nd Response to the Florida Bar complaint filed against him. BOOKMARKED
231	2003 06 03 Iviewit Rebuttal to Wheeler Florida Bar Complaint 2nd Response Final
232	2003 06 04 Lorraine Christine Hoffman of The Florida Bar cover letter regarding Wheeler bar complaint.
233	2003 06 13 Kenneth Rubenstein affidavit to his deposition, where he writes in his answers without precedence, rhythm or reason. Judge Jorge Labarga orders Rubenstein to return to deposition and answer the questions he refused the first time after walking out of his deposition. Remember this is his deposition in his firms law suit.
234	2003 07 01 Florida Bar Response Wheeler Complaint trying to claim that the federal state and international crimes presented them were more a civil matter.
235	2003 07 02 Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein's response to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Final 2200+ Pages ALL
236	2003 07 04 Mitchell Welsch Letter of Understanding for Schiffrin and Barroway deal that went awry.
237	2003 07 16 Signed Letter of Understanding "LOU" between Iviewit & Schiffrin & Barroway for two million dollars and full funding of all legal counsel in all legal actions. One must ask where are they and the story can be found in complaints filed at the Pennsylvania State Bar.
238	2003 07 18 - Krishna Narine from Schiffrin & Barroway taking over patents and getting his family member Weisberg of Christopher & Weisberg, PA involved.
239	2003 07 18 - Krishna Narine from Schiffrin & Barroway taking over patents and getting his family member Weisberg of Christopher & Weisberg PA involved.
240	2003 07 22 - Krishna Narine of Schiffrin & Barroway transfers patents to Christopher & Weisberg.
241	2003 07 22 - Overnight and billing for transfer of patents to Christopher & Weisberg.
242	2003 07 22 Bernstein confirms patent transfer to Weisberg.
243	2003 07 24 Crossbow Ventures and DiStream Interactive deal.
244	2003 07 24 DiStream Interactive draft term sheet with Iviewit Inc. and Iviewit Holdings never executed as it was a bad deal and it was found that DiStream CEO Royal O'Brien had rewritten Iviewit patents into his name.
245	2003 07 25 Steven M. Selz of Selz & Muvdi letter regarding stand down orders in Labarga litigation because Schiffrin and Barroway operating under the signed LOU asked to replace him in the case.
246	2003 07 25 Steven M. Selz letter to Schiffrin & Barroway regarding stand down as counsel orders.
247	2003 07 28 Proskauer draft settlement that had so many flaws no one could sign it without repercussions of committing fraud against the Shareholders and they would not put in clause regarding the patents, that stated if the patents were damaged it was their liability.
248	2003 08 01 Judge Jorge Labarga grants Schiffrin & Barroway motion to withdraw as counsel, in a surprise move at a rehearing scheduling days after the original trial was cancelled by Labarga with no notice to Steven Selz, Iviewit's counsel or Iviewit. This leaves Iviewit with no counsel on the eve trial, two law firms dismissed by Labarga whereby both said the other would be representing Iviewit.
249	2003 08 01 Judge Jorge Labarga grants Steven M. Selz motion to withdraw as counsel for the upcoming trial after Selz states Schiffrin & Barroway who signed a binding Letter of Understanding would be handling the case. Then Schiffrin & Barroway submits a surprise motion to withdraw and Labarga grants it, leaving Iviewit with no counsel.
250	2003 08 01 Judge Jorge Labarga regarding Steven M. Selz's notice to withdraw and trial rescheduling.
251	2003 08 01 Schiffrin & Barroway notice to withdraw as counsel from Iviewit, breaching their binding LOU and legal retainer.
252	2003 08 01 Steven M. Selz withdrawal as counsel in Proskauer v. Iviewit.
253	2003 08 02 - Iviewit letter to Krishna Narine of Schiffrin & Barroway on Christopher & Weisberg PA failure to file response on patent after taking Iviewit as a client.
254	2003 08 02 - Iviewit letter to Christopher & Weisberg regarding their being retained by Schiffrin & Barroway, getting the patents transferred by Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman and then blowing off a patent filing in violation of Title 35 USC and the Federal Patent bar, for this they were added to the complaints with Harry I. Moatz, Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment & Discipline.
255	2003 08 04 Christopher & Weisberg withdrawal as counsel and attempts to claim they were not acting as counsel for Iviewit which is wholly untrue as they were retained by a family relative from Schiffrin & Barroway, Krishna Narine. This seriously jeopardizes Iviewit with USPTO on patent filings.
256	2003 08 05 - Iviewit response to Christopher & Weisberg email stating they had missed a patent filing while being retained counsel.
257	2003 08 08 Federal Bureau of Investigation West Palm Beach Florida, original complaint filing with Glenda Moffat.
258	2003 08 12 Andrew Barroway of Schiffrin & Barroway Pennsylvania Bar complaint.
259	2003 08 13 Iviewit demand letter to Schiffrin & Barroway for performance under signed and binding LOU.
260	2003 08 13 Schiffrin & Barroway demand for performance letter.
261	2003 08 14 Christopher Wheeler involvement at Florida Atlantic University Foundation Scandal & Fuzion Fraud. Utley and Wheeler controlled FAU foundation when scandal took place. Wheeler was reported taking tax deduction on his portion of contribution to a Corvette for past president.
262	2003 08 28 Boca Raton Police Written Statement regarding stolen cash from Iviewit including funds from Tiedemann Prolow investment, Crossbow Ventures investments which were 2/3 Small Business Administration loans.
263	2003 09 02 - Boca Raton Police Department Written Statement regarding stolen intellectual property given to Detective Robert Flechaus who failed to perform his investigative duties and buried the complaints instead.
264	2003 09 02 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee letter that was lost for months regarding holding off investigation of Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose, Raymond Joao and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel.
265	2003 09 02 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee response regarding Raymond Joao, Proskauer Rose, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel and Kenneth Rubenstein bar complaints which comes way late as it was lost in the mail. The document is probably fraudulent and tries to dismiss the complaints as a civil matter, although they ignore the state, federal and international crimes against the government and foreign nations exposed in the complaints.
266	2003 09 17 United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment & Discipline written statement to Harry I Moatz, Director of the OED.
267	2003 09 19 Motion for mistrial in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case based on the insane actions of Judge Jorge Labarga.
268	2003 09 23 United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment & Discipline written statement to Harry I Moatz, Director of the OED. Corrected.
269	2003 09 23 Virginia Bar Complaint filed against William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner for Dick's patent crimes.
270	2003 09 25 Certified letter to Harry I. Moatz and William Dick.
271	2003 09 26 - Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar, that civil case was over which is why the failed to investigate originally, although Florida Bar rules prohibit delaying investigation into bar complaints because of civil cases.
272	2003 09 02 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee letter that was lost for months regarding holding off investigation of Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose, Raymond Joao and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel.
273	2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Missing
274	2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Not Signed Missing Exhibits
275	2003 10 02 Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar to re-file the complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler as the civil litigation was completed.
276	2003 10 02 Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar to re-file the complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler as the civil litigation was completed.
277	2003 10 08 Virginia Bar response to William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner bar complaint requesting more information.
278	2003 10 08 Virginia Bar response to William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner bar complaint requesting more information.
279	2003 10 13 - Florida Bar letter by Lorraine Christine Hoffman attempting to delay Christopher Wheeler bar complaint investigation still claiming it was before a civil court. Hoffman knew that Judge Labarga had limited the Proskauer v. Iviewit case to strictly billing issues and denied a counter complaint that tried to bring in the patent crimes and other crimes committed. Hoffman ignores these facts and continues to protect Wheeler, at the time it was unknown that the President of The Florida Bar, Kelly Overstreet Johnson worked for Wheeler's brother James Wheeler at Broad & Cassel a Florida law firm. Johnson conceals the conflict while accepting information on the Wheeler complaint.
280	2003 10 13 The Florida Bar letter again delaying wheeler complaint based on civil litigation.
281	2003 10 15 Judicial Qualifications Commission of Florida complaint against Judge Jorge Labarga letter from Kennerly.
282	2003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.
283	2003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.
284	2003 10 30 Fax receipt for William J. Dick Virginia bar complaint response.
285	2003 11 09 AICPA Goldstein Lewin & Co. complaint against Erika & Gerald Lewin.
286	2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.
287	2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.
288	2003 11 14 P. Stephen Lamont letter to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman asking where the intellectual property docket is.
289	2003 11 14 P. Stephen Lamont letter to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman asking where the intellectual property docket is.
290	2003 11 17 - Final Judgment against Iviewit in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case. Judgment was issued by Judge Jorge Labarga, after he cancelled the first trial with no notice to Iviewit or either of their law firms, Selz & Muvdi and Schiffrin & Barroway. At the rescheduling hearing both Schiffrin & Barroway and Selz Muvdi withdrew as counsel stating the other would be handling the case. Labarga let both go instead, despite the fact that Schiffrin & Barroway had signed a binding LOU/Legal Retainer agreement to represent Iviewit at the case. This forced Iviewit to have no counsel and days later Labarga ruled a default on Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel. Iviewit could not find counsel that fast in a almost three year case and Schiffrin and Selz refused to turn over necessary files needed to find new counsel or file an appeal.
291	2003 11 17 - Final Judgment against Iviewit in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case. Judgment was issued by Judge Jorge Labarga, after he cancelled the first trial with no notice to Iviewit or either of their law firms, Selz & Muvdi and Schiffrin & Barroway. At the rescheduling hearing both Schiffrin & Barroway and Selz Muvdi withdrew as counsel stating the other would be handling the case. Labarga let both go instead, despite the fact that Schiffrin & Barroway had signed a binding LOU/Legal Retainer agreement to represent Iviewit at the case. This forced Iviewit to have no counsel and days later Labarga ruled a default on Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel. Iviewit could not find counsel that fast in a almost three year case and Schiffrin and Selz refused to turn over necessary files needed to find new counsel or file an appeal.
292	2003 11 19 - Iviewit letter to Eric Turner of The Florida Bar requesting a review of the Lorraine Christine Hoffman determination.
293	2003 11 19 - Iviewit letter to Eric Turner of The Florida Bar requesting a review of the Lorraine Christine Hoffman determination.
294	2003 11 20 - Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman Intellectual Property portfolio showing Japanese Patents and Utley Patents.
295	2003 11 20 - The Florida Bar re-examination notice stating they were reviewing the prior decision regarding the Christopher Wheeler bar complaint.
296	2003 11 20 - The Florida Bar re-examination notice stating they were reviewing the prior decision regarding the Christopher Wheeler bar complaint.
297	2003 11 22 - European Patent Office response to formal office action which exposes the fraud that Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman was supposed to be exposing to them and correcting but never did. This document turns up later to be sent by Chris Mercer of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office who while investigating the EPO filings but the document has been tampered with and is missing the exhibits, etc.
298	2003 11 23 - P010 European Patent Office response to office action filed by Martyn Molyneaux of WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP whereby Molyneaux confirms that he filed the fraud charges but instead it appears he filed a fraudulent document without most of the exhibits.
299	2003 11 23 - P010 European Patent Office response to office action filed by Martyn Molyneaux of WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN & DIXON LLP whereby Molyneaux confirms that he filed the fraud charges but instead it appears he filed a fraudulent document without most of the exhibits.
300	2003 11 24 Patent Portfolio of Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman.
301	2003 11 25 Response to Pennsylvania Bar regarding complaints against Schiffrin & Barroway.
302	2003 12 11 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman writes a letter regarding the missing patent files sent by Foley & Lardner.
303	2003 12 11 Iviewit letter to Florida Judicial Qualification Commission, Brooke Kennerly response Final EIB PSL signed.
304	2003 Letter from Iviewit to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman regarding the patent matters.
305	2003 10 30 Iviewit response to Virginia Bar letter regarding the bar complaint filed against William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner.
306	2004 01 06 Brian G. Utley declaration for William Dick's Virginia Bar response. This statement is contradicted by Utley's statements in his own deposition regarding the filing by Dick of stolen patent from Utley's former employer Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. It is later learned that Christopher Wheeler had set up a company, Premiere Connections, for Utley to house the patents Dick was stealing with Utley from Utley's employer Monte Friedkin. This again shows a criminal enterprise with a prior history of patent crimes.
307	2004 01 08 - William J. Dick statement to Virginia Bar showing his involvement with Brian G. Utley at Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. and claims that he filed patents with the United States Patent & Trademark Office which contradicts Utley deposition statements that patents were never filed. Although these fraudulent statements are exposed to the Virginia Bar they fail to do anything to question Dick regarding these crimes, including falsifying information to the Virginia Bar.
308	2004 01 08 - Foley & Lardner patent portfolio included as part of William J. Dick's Virginia Bar complaint. This IP docket was later submitted to Harry I Moatz of the United States Patent & Trademark Office whereby Moatz found many inconsistencies with the IP docket versus what was one file. This leads Moatz to get patents suspended by the Commissioner of Patents. Although the Virginia Bar was notified of Moatz's actions and the fraudulent IP docket they failed to investigate the matters.
309	2004 01 08 William J. Dick's statement to the Virginia Bar showing that Premiere Connections received patents Dick wrote into Utley's name and sent to his home, inventions of Utley's employer, Premiere Connections turns out to be the company that Christopher Wheeler of Proskauer Rose set up for Brian G. Utley. Wheeler later lies and perjures himself by saying he never did work for Utley to conceal this company from the Florida Bar action. Wheeler lies to the Florida Bar that he never did work for Utley and then contradicts himself in deposition, after Utley also contradicts Wheeler's lies. This ties Utley, Wheeler and Dick together in former theft of patents from Utley's prior employer of which all three fail to disclose this matter to the Iviewit Shareholders or Board.
310	2004 01 09 - Response to Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee regarding the attorney misconduct complaint against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel being delayed due to a lost letter he supposedly had sent. This is right before Iviewit learns that the attorney for Proskauer is a Proskauer partner, in the IP department no less, who just happens to be a member of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
311	2004 01 09 - Response to Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel, New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee regarding the attorney misconduct complaint against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel being delayed due to a lost letter he supposedly had sent. This is right before Iviewit learns that the attorney for Proskauer is a Proskauer partner, in the IP department no less, who just happens to be a member of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
312	2004 01 09 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman letter response to Thomas Coester, charging Blakely with crimes and being a conspirator.
313	2004 01 09 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman letter response to Thomas Coester, charging Blakely with crimes and being a conspirator.
314	2004 01 09 Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman letter response to Thomas Coester, charging Blakely with crimes and being a conspirator.
315	2004 01 13 Department of Justice Antitrust Division Response to Iviewit complaint. Iviewit does not respond to this as investigations begin at the United States Patent & Trademark Office. What is most interesting to note is that the DOJ claims that it never approved the MPEGLA LLC licensing scheme that it only issued a business review letter. This makes MPEGLA LLC claim that the DOJ gave them approval false and misleading and allows them to sell to the public they have DOJ approval for this patent pooling scheme. What is more interesting is that the DOJ had prior consistently broke up patent pools for violations of antitrust laws.
316	2004 01 13 Department of Justice Antitrust Division Response to Iviewit complaint. Iviewit does not respond to this as investigations begin at the United States Patent & Trademark Office. What is most interesting to note is that the DOJ claims that it never approved the MPEGLA LLC licensing scheme that it only issued a business review letter. This makes MPEGLA LLC claim that the DOJ gave them approval false and misleading and allows them to sell to the public they have DOJ approval for this patent pooling scheme. What is more interesting is that the DOJ had prior consistently broke up patent pools for violations of antitrust laws.
317	2004 01 20 Eric Montel Turner from The Florida Bar response to not investigate Christopher Clark Wheeler and Turner opines that Proskauer did no patent work for Iviewit having not formally investigated the Wheeler complaint, this is a violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar which precludes Florida Bar from siding with either parties claims without formal investigation. A bar complaint is filed against Turner for this but the Florida Bar dismisses it without formally docketing or disposing of it, claiming it was an employer/employee matter. Even that should have been formally docketed and disposed of but it was not.
318	2004 01 20 Eric Montel Turner from The Florida Bar response to not investigate Christopher Clark Wheeler and Turner opines that Proskauer did no patent work for Iviewit having not formally investigated the Wheeler complaint, this is a violation of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar which precludes Florida Bar from siding with either parties claims without formal investigation. A bar complaint is filed against Turner for this but the Florida Bar dismisses it without formally docketing or disposing of it, claiming it was an employer/employee matter. Even that should have been formally docketed and disposed of but it was not.
319	2004 01 21 - William J. Dick of Foley & Lardner's Virginia Bar response whereby Dick claims he filed patents for Brian G. Utley contradicting Utley's deposition statement stating patents were never filed for inventions of his former employer.
320	2004 01 21 - William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner response to his Virginia Bar complaint. Full of lies.
321	2004 01 25 Iviewit response to Eric Montel Turner of The Florida Bar regarding the failure of the Florida Bar to reopen the Wheeler Complaint and to retract and redact statements regarding Proskauer not having done patent work for Iviewit which is patently false.
322	2004 01 25 Iviewit response to Eric Montel Turner of The Florida Bar regarding the failure of the Florida Bar to reopen the Wheeler Complaint and to retract and redact statements regarding Proskauer not having done patent work for Iviewit which is patently false.
323	2004 01 27 WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN &
324	DIXON LLP letter stating that Martyn Molyneaux left the firm.
325	2004 01 27 WILDMAN, HARROLD, ALLEN &
326	DIXON LLP letter stating that Martyn Molyneaux left the firm.
327	2004 01 28 Iviewit response to Eric Montel Turner of The Florida Bar regarding his decision not to reopen the Christopher Clark Wheeler case despite massive evidence against Wheeler.
328	2004 02 02 Eric Montel Turner of the Florida Bar response to Iviewit regarding his stating that he was the final arbiter of Florida Bar complaints and stating that it would be passed to the next highest level of review which he had stated did not exist, trying to get Iviewit to give up and not press the claims with the Florida Bar.
329	2004 02 04 - Iviewit response to Eric Montel Turner response to the Iviewit 2004 02 02 letter.
330	2004 02 04 - Iviewit response to Eric Montel Turner response to the Iviewit 2004 02 02 letter.
331	2004 02 11 - 09 587 026 Filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office claiming that per the direction of Harry I. Moatz, Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, Iviewit & Crossbow Ventures were seeking the Commissioner of Patents to suspend the Iviewit patents based on evidence of Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit former Intellectual Property attorneys, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Raymond Anthony Joao, Foley & Lardner, William J. Dick, Douglas Boehm, Steven Becker, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Thomas Coester, Norman Zafman, Farzahd Ahmini, Christopher & Weisberg PA, Krishna Narine, Andrew Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway and others. This led to the Commissioner of Patents suspending certain of the Iviewit patent applications into an infinite black hole. The form also included inventor change forms which have gone wholly unresolved while patents are in black hole at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.'
332	2004 02 14 Eric M. Turner of the Florida Bar 3rd response regarding the Christopher Clark Wheeler and Proskauer Rose LLP complaint. Turner states that when he told us he was the final arbiter and there was no higher level, which was learned to be false, that he meant the Florida Bar was the highest level and that the Florida Supreme Court would not hear the matter. This statement is false as the Florida Supreme Court did hear the matter and then declined to hear it???
333	2004 03 02 - Iviewit letter to Stephen Warner of Crossbow Ventures regarding the patent problems and fraud that was going on at Iviewit.
334	2004 03 03 - 09 522 721 Filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office claiming that per the direction of Harry I. Moatz, Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, Iviewit & Crossbow Ventures were seeking the Commissioner of Patents to suspend the Iviewit patents based on evidence of Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit former Intellectual Property attorneys, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Raymond Anthony Joao, Foley & Lardner, William J. Dick, Douglas Boehm, Steven Becker, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Thomas Coester, Norman Zafman, Farzahd Ahmini, Christopher & Weisberg PA, Krishna Narine, Andrew Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway and others. This led to the Commissioner of Patents suspending certain of the Iviewit patent applications into an infinite black hole. The form also included inventor change forms which have gone wholly unresolved while patents are in black hole at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
335	2004 03 03 Crossbow Ventures CEO Stephen J. Warner signs statement to patent office that fraud was committed by the attorneys against Iviewit and Crossbow Ventures and where 2/3 of the Crossbow Venture funds were Small Business Administration SBIC loans, this makes this fraud against the SBA and the USPTO. Oy Vey.
336	2004 03 04 - 09 522 721 Filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office claiming that per the direction of Harry I. Moatz, Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, Iviewit & Crossbow Ventures were seeking the Commissioner of Patents to suspend the Iviewit patents based on evidence of Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit former Intellectual Property attorneys, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Raymond Anthony Joao, Foley & Lardner, William J. Dick, Douglas Boehm, Steven Becker, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Thomas Coester, Norman Zafman, Farzahd Ahmini, Christopher & Weisberg PA, Krishna Narine, Andrew Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway and others. This led to the Commissioner of Patents suspending certain of the Iviewit patent applications into an infinite black hole. The form also included inventor change forms which have gone wholly unresolved while patents are in black hole at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
337	2004 03 04 - 09 587 026 Filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office claiming that per the direction of Harry I. Moatz, Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, Iviewit & Crossbow Ventures were seeking the Commissioner of Patents to suspend the Iviewit patents based on evidence of Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit former Intellectual Property attorneys, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Raymond Anthony Joao, Foley & Lardner, William J. Dick, Douglas Boehm, Steven Becker, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Thomas Coester, Norman Zafman, Farzahd Ahmini, Christopher & Weisberg PA, Krishna Narine, Andrew Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway and others. This led to the Commissioner of Patents suspending certain of the Iviewit patent applications into an infinite black hole. The form also included inventor change forms which have gone wholly unresolved while patents are in black hole at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
338	2004 03 04 - 09 630 939 - 2004 03 04 United States Patent & Trademark Commissioner approval of request for suspension while investigations are pending into Iviewit claims that their attorneys committed both fraud on the USPTO and fraud on Iviewit. Patents remain in limbo.
339	2004 03 05 Eric Montel Turner of The Florida Bar letter stating he had turned the review over to the chair, notice his failure to capitalize the undefined term chair, as if his chair was reviewing the matters, this becomes hysterical in next letters.
340	2004 03 12 Iviewit response to Virginia Bar decision regarding William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner showing that the patents were suspended based on charges that Dick was involved in fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and fraud on Iviewit and to reopen his case in light of this new and damaging evidence. Also, the IP docket submitted by Dick in his response to the Virginia Bar was found by the USPTO to be fraught with fraud. Yet, Virginia Bar held fast on their decisions despite compelling evidence to investigate.
341	2004 03 16 - AICPA letter regarding the complaint against Gerald Lewin, Goldstein & Lewin Co. and Erika Lewin seeking more information. This investigation is then derailed by a new investigator who claims the AICPA does not have funds to investigate and that we should go to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, where Lewin slips out of that complaint, again appearing a total denial of due process.
342	2004 03 17 Iviewit letter to Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in West Palm Beach Florida requesting investigation of the Iviewit matters.
343	Filing with the United States Patent & Trademark Office claiming that per the direction of Harry I. Moatz, Director of the Office of Enrollment & Discipline, Iviewit & Crossbow Ventures were seeking the Commissioner of Patents to suspend the Iviewit patents based on evidence of Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit former Intellectual Property attorneys, Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose LLP, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Raymond Anthony Joao, Foley & Lardner, William J. Dick, Douglas Boehm, Steven Becker, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman, Thomas Coester, Norman Zafman, Farzahd Ahmini, Christopher & Weisberg PA, Krishna Narine, Andrew Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway and others. This led to the Commissioner of Patents suspending certain of the Iviewit patent applications into an infinite black hole. The form also included inventor change forms which have gone wholly unresolved while patents are in black hole at the United States Patent & Trademark Office.'
344	2004 03 22 Portfolio Compilation Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel, Foley & Lardner & Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman which shows inconsistencies between the firms on the patent owners, inventors and assignees.
345	2004 03 22 William J. Dick Virginia Bar Iviewit rebuttal 2,881 pages of great evidence for the IP crimes.
346	2004 03 23 Letter to Shareholders showing Iviewit is being billed for Utley patents, the billings appear to be fraudulent and to attempt to justify the Utley patents once they were discovered, nice try at a cover up.
347	2004 03 23 United States Patent & Trademark Office correspondence showing that the Utley patents are not the property of Iviewit, the inventors are not the Iviewit inventors and the owners and assignees are not the Iviewit Companies.
348	2004 03 23 United States Patent & Trademark Office correspondence showing that the Utley patents are not the property of Iviewit, the inventors are not the Iviewit inventors and the owners and assignees are not the Iviewit Companies.
349	2004 03 23 United States Patent & Trademark Office correspondence showing that the Utley patents are not the property of Iviewit, the inventors are not the Iviewit inventors and the owners and assignees are not the Iviewit Companies.
350	2004 03 25 Patent Portfolio prepared by Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman and reviewed by Weider of the United States Patent & Trademark Office whereby it was found there appeared a mass of fraud and this led to Commissioner of Patents suspending the IP.
351	2004 03 25 Patent Portfolio prepared by Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman and reviewed by Weider of the United States Patent & Trademark Office whereby it was found there appeared a mass of fraud and this led to Commissioner of Patents suspending the IP.
352	2004 03 26 Moatz letter to take time responding for complaint.
353	2004 03 29 United States Patent & Trademark Office Commissioner suspends Iviewit patents based on allegations of fraud on the USPTO and Iviewit.
354	2004 03 29 United States Patent & Trademark Office Commissioner suspends Iviewit patents based on allegations of fraud on the USPTO and Iviewit.
355	2004 03 29 Withdrawal of attorneys Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman and Foley & Lardner.
356	2004 03 30 Corporate formation chart based on evidence recovered from Iviewit files and files from Proskauer Rose copied in Proskauer v. Iviewit case, showing a litany of corporations and name changes. This excersize was preformed after learning from the United States Patent & Trademark Office - Harry I. Moatz, that patents had been assigned to companies they should not have been assigned too.
357	2004 04 03 - 09 587 730 - 2004 04 03 United States Patent & Trademark Office approval of Request for Suspension of the patent based on allegations of fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit patent attorneys. This letter was also sent to the accused to notify them of the liability and for them to report such to their liability carriers.
358	2004 04 19 - 09 587 026 - 57103-115 2004 04 19 United States Patent & Trademark Office approval of Request for Suspension of the patent based on allegations of fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office by Iviewit patent attorneys.
359	2004 04 21 Letter to Iviewit Shareholders and Directors regarding the fraud uncovered at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the corporate fraud discovered.
360	2004 04 21 Letter to Iviewit Shareholders and Directors regarding the fraud uncovered at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the corporate fraud discovered.
361	2004 04 29 Chart prepared to explain as best as possible on the limited evidence at the time how the patent and corporate scheme was presumed to have occurred.
362	2004 04 30 Director and Officers Meeting Agenda.
363	2004 04 30 Director and Officers Meeting Agenda.
364	2004 04 30 Response to AICPA request for more information regarding complaints against Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin and Goldstein Lewin & Co. CPA's
365	2004 04 30 Response to AICPA request for more information regarding complaints against Gerald R. Lewin, Erika Lewin and Goldstein Lewin & Co. CPA's
366	2004 04 30 Teleconference Minutes from Directors and Officers meeting regarding the fraud discovered.
367	2004 04 21 Letter to Iviewit Shareholders and Directors regarding the fraud uncovered at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the corporate fraud discovered.
368	2004 05 01 Iviewit letters to former Officers and Directors regarding the information uncovered at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and regarding the corporate fraud and other crimes. This question set was for Gerald Lewin of Goldstein & Lewin Co.
369	2004 05 02 Minutes of meeting with former Board and Officers.
370	2004 05 02 Teleconference Minutes of Board meeting.
371	2004 05 13 Iviewit letters to former Officers and Directors regarding the information uncovered at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and regarding the corporate fraud and other crimes. This question set was for Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer Rose LLP.
372	2004 05 19 Complaint filed against Steven C. Krane and Proskauer Rose LLP at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee to strike the conflicted response of Krane who violated his public office positions in representing his firm and partner Kenneth Rubenstein in their bar complaints.
373	2004 05 19 Complaint filed against Steven C. Krane and Proskauer Rose LLP at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee with Thomas Cahill to strike the conflicted response of Krane who violated his public office positions in representing his firm and partner Kenneth Rubenstein in their bar complaints.
374	2004 05 19 Iviewit letter to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee to strike the conflicted response of Steven C. Krane of Proskauer in the Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLP complaint filed and a formal request for investigation of Krane for such violations of his public offices.
375	2004 05 20 Iviewit letter to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee to strike the conflicted response of Steven C. Krane of Proskauer in the Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLP complaint filed and a formal request for investigation of Krane for such violations of his public offices.
376	2004 05 21 Eric Montel Turner of the Florida Bar's response to the Iviewit petition to the Florida Supreme Court, note the illiteracy rate in the response that makes it impossible to determine what exactly he is saying.
377	2004 05 21 Eric Montel Turner of the Florida Bar's response to the Iviewit petition to the Florida Supreme Court, note the illiteracy rate in the response that makes it impossible to determine what exactly he is saying.
378	2004 05 21 Steven C. Krane of Proskauer Rose response to the complaint filed against him and requesting that his responses be stricken from the Rubenstein complaint. Krane fails to disclose his roles at both the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and The New York State Bar which both preclude him from handling complaints against his firm and partner, especially where he has personal and professional interests. The infamous Krane suicide note.
379	2004 05 21 Iviewit letters to former Officers and Directors regarding the information uncovered at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and regarding the corporate fraud and other crimes. This question set was for Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP and MPEGLA LLC.
380	2004 05 24 Eric Turner of The Florida Bar letter telling Iviewit to put everything in writing to avoid misunderstandings.
381	2004 05 24 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee letter to strike the responses of Steven C. Krane of Proskaeur Rose for conflicts of interest and violations of public offices.
382	2004 05 25 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee letter to strike the responses of Steven C. Krane of Proskaeur Rose for conflicts of interest and violations of public officesSupreme Court Strike Response of Steven Krane for Conflict of Interest & Violation of Public Offices.
383	2004 05 26 - Iviewit response to Steven C. Krane letter dated May 21, 2004 asking the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Thomas Cahill to strike all Krane responses and pointing out his roles at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and NYSBA and other ethics departments that all made his representations violations of his public offices.
384	2004 05 26 Biography of Steven C. Krane showing conflicting roles at Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the NYSBA and other ethics departments that would have precluded him from representing his Proskauer partner Rubenstein, his firm Proskauer and himself.
385	2004 05 26 - Iviewit response to Steven C. Krane letter dated May 21, 2004 asking the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Thomas Cahill to strike all Krane responses and pointing out his roles at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and NYSBA and other ethics departments that all made his representations violations of his public offices.
386	2004 05 26 Iviewit letter to Foley & Lardner
387	2004 05 27 - Eric Turner Response to letter dated 2004 05 21
388	2004 05 27 - Iviewit Letter to Eric Turner of The Florida Bar letter dated May 21, 2004.
389	2004 06 01 - Eric Turner of The Florida Bar regarding the process for elevating the Christopher Clark Wheeler Florida Bar complaint. This comes after Turner tried to claim he was the final arbiter for The Florida Bar.
390	2004 06 01 - Eric Turner of The Florida Bar regarding the process for elevating the Christopher Clark Wheeler Florida Bar complaint. This comes after Turner tried to claim he was the final arbiter for The Florida Bar.
391	2004 06 02 - Iviewit letter to Eric Turner of The Florida Bar.
392	2004 06 06 The Florida Bar taped call regarding confirming that Matthew Triggs of Proskauer had a role with a Florida Bar Grievance Committee within the year which precluded him from representing any party for a period of one year, especially his partner and his law firm, especially where he had personal and professional interests in the outcome and finally where he was representing Proskauer simultaneously in the Proskauer v. Iviewit lawsuit.
393	2004 06 14 Japanese Office Action.
394	2004 06 17 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Thomas Cahill's Motion to move the complaints of Steven C. Krane, Proskauer and Kenneth Rubenstein for what he claims to avoid the appearance of impropriety when in fact he knew that Krane had violated his public office. Iviewit had contacted Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department who informed Iviewit that despite Cahill's initial denial that Krane had any roles with the department, that she was having a meeting with both Cahill and Krane on a Committee at the department. Holy cow Batman, their busted. Cahill writes this biased letter after learning that a complaint was filed against him and it is wholly misleading of the facts.
395	2004 06 23 - Paul J. Curran, Chairman of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee moving the complaint filed against Thomas J. Cahill for investigation according to department rules. A complaint was filed against Thomas J. Cahill for his involvement with lying about Steven C. Krane's conflicts and violations of public offices.
396	2004 06 23 Iviewit faxs the disciplinary complaint filed against Thomas J. Cahill to Paul J. Curran for investigation.
397	2004 06 23 Cahill Petition.
398	2004 06 24 Iviewit letter to Eric Turner of the Florida Bar demanding information regarding the positions of Matthew Triggs, Christopher Clark Wheeler and Spencer Sax of Sax Sachs & Klien to determine further violations of public offices revealed by the Triggs violation of public offices and noticing him that Iviewit would be petitioning the Florida Supreme Court.
399	2004 06 29 - Complaint against Steven C. Krane of Proskauer Rose sent to Paul J. Curran, Chairman of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.
400	2004 06 30 The Florida Bar complaint against Eric Montel Turner for his violations of his Florida Bar public office position.
401	2004 06 30 The Florida Bar's President, Kelly Overstreet Johnson, accepting Iviewit complaint letters but fails to disclose her conflicts. Johnson was conflicted with the Wheeler complaint as she worked at the Florida law firm of Broad & Cassel with Wheeler's brother, James Wheeler and failed to disclose such while taking complaint information in.
402	2004 06 30 Christopher Clark Wheeler biography showing his false claims of Florida Bar positions, which is a violation of attorney conduct rules of Florida, this forms the base for yet another complaint against Wheeler for false advertising.
403	2004 07 01 Debroah Yarbrough, a clerk for the Florida Supreme Court fax cover telling her the Florida Bar intended on destroying files and hiding the case so it could not be sent to the Florida Supreme Court.
404	2004 07 01 Eric Turner Complaint Against Eric Turner The Florida Bar
405	2004 07 01 Eric M. Turner formal Florida Bar complaint, sent to Turner.
406	2004 07 01 Florida Supreme Court Case SC04-1078 - Acknowledgement of New Case and Stricken Due to Petitioner Not A Member of The Florida Bar Representing A Corporation.
407	2004 07 01 Iviewit fax of a Petition for the Florida Supreme Court regarding the Florida Bar crimes being committed by its members.
408	2004 07 01 Letter to Debbie Yarbrough of the Florida Supreme Court regarding the Florida Bar's half truth on the file destruction of the Christopher Clark Wheeler bar complaint.
409	2004 07 01 Debroah Yarbrough of the Florida Supreme Court's message regarding Kenneth Marvin of The Florida Bar's misleading Yarbrough, stating The Florida Bar would return the files to Iviewit. Marvin fails to state that The Florida Bar would destroy their work product that was necessary to evaluate the confirmed violation of public office by Matthew Triggs for prosecution.
410	2004 07 02 Kenneth Marvin of The Florida Bar letter regarding the Eric Montel Turner Florida Bar complaint, stating that the Turner violations of his public office were employer/employee matters and that he would not docket or process the formal filed complaint. This is inapposite of Florida Constitution and The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.
411	2004 07 06 Iviewit Petition to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the Christopher C. Wheeler bar complaint, the Matthew Triggs complaint and the Eric M. Turner complaint. FINAL NOTARIZED
412	2004 07 08 Iviewit Motion to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department regarding the Cahill complaint.
413	2004 07 08 Iviewit Motion to the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department regarding the conflicts and violations of public offices of Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose, Steven C. Krane, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel and Raymond A. Joao and requesting immediate investigation and to move the complaints.
414	2004 07 09 The Florida Bar's counsel John Anthony Boggs letter confirming the violation of public office by Matthew Triggs of Proskauer in the handling of his Proskauer Partner Wheeler and his firm Proskauer. Boggs then tries to cite law that was only proposed as a defense of Wheeler and states shoulda coulda woulda logic in attempts to justify the violation. Funny that the Florida Bar is acting like Wheeler's personal defense.
415	2004 07 09 The Florida Bar's counsel John Anthony Boggs letter confirming the violation of public office by Matthew Triggs of Proskauer in the handling of his Proskauer Partner Wheeler and his firm Proskauer. Boggs then tries to cite law that was only proposed as a defense of Wheeler and states shoulda coulda woulda logic in attempts to justify the violation. Funny that the Florida Bar is acting like Wheeler's personal defense.
416	2004 07 12 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Thomas Cahill's Motion to move the complaints of Steven C. Krane and Proskauer, note this comes after Cahill has a filed complaint against him, making this further reason for another complaint against him.
417	2004 07 12 Florida Supreme Court Iviewit docket update.
418	2004 07 13 Iviewit's second bar complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer Rose, this goes undocketed and never gets resolved, inapposite The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and against the Florida Constitution.
419	2004 07 15 - American Internation Group "AIG" Directors and Officers policy internal affairs letter regarding fraud on AIG committed by Proskauer Rose.
420	2004 07 15 - American Internation Group "AIG" Directors and Officers policy internal affairs letter regarding fraud on AIG committed by Proskauer Rose.
421	2004 07 22 John A. Boggs of The Florida Bar receipt of Matthew Triggs bar complaint which was never formally docketed or given procedural due process, inapposite The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and the Florida Constitution.
422	2004 07 22 Kelly O. Johnson, President, The Florida Bar, receipt of the Matthew Triggs of Proskauer's bar complaint. Johnson recieves complaint information on Wheeler failing to disclose she works for Wheeler's brother James Wheeler at Broad & Cassel, a small law firm in Florida.
423	2004 07 22 Matthew Triggs bar complaint at The Florida Bar. The complaint was never docketed or procedurally disposed of, inapposite The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and the Florida Constitution.
424	2004 07 22 Matthew Triggs bar complaint at The Florida Bar. The complaint was never docketed or procedurally disposed of, inapposite The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar and the Florida Constitution. BOOKMARKED
425	2004 07 23 Florida Supreme Court ruling that Iviewit cannot be represented Pro Se, forcing the complaint to be re-filed by Lamont and Bernstein on behalf of the Iviewit Shareholders. Although Florida pulled this trick, the New York Supreme Court did not and allowed Iviewit to be represented by Lamont and Bernstein acting Pro Se.
426	2004 07 23 - The Affirmed Amended Petition for: Injunctive Relief; Declaratory Relief; Begin Immediate Investigation of Complaint Against Christopher C. Wheeler; and Move Complaints to the Next Highest Level of Review, Void of Conflict of Interest and Appearance Of Impropriety declined based on Pro Se representation of a corporation.
427	2004 07 26 Iviewit letter to Harry I. Moatz of the United States Patent & Trademark Office regarding failure of patent agents Moatz assigned to return calls regarding upcoming patent suspension deadlines and asking that he request another twelve months of suspension.
428	2004 07 28 Iviewit response to letter of John A. Boggs of The Florida Bar regarding the complaints of Christopher C. Wheeler of Proskauer, Matthew Triggs of Proskauer and Eric Montel Turner of The Florida Bar and his attempts to obfuscate his duties and other matters of interest.
429	2004 07 28 Cahill to move Krane.
430	2004 07 28 Crossbow Ventures signs alongside Iviewit inventors with the United States Patent & Trademark Office charges of Fraud on the Patent Office and requests to change inventors to the Iviewit inventors.
431	2004 07 28 Iviewit Amended Petition to the Florida Supreme Court Docket #SC04-1078 regarding the crimes committed at The Florida Bar.
432	2004 07 28 Iviewit Amended Petition to the Florida Supreme Court Docket #SC04-1078 regarding the crimes committed at The Florida Bar.
433	2004 07 28 Iviewit Amended Petition to the Florida Supreme Court Docket #SC04-1078 regarding the crimes committed at The Florida Bar.
434	2004 07 28 Iviewit response to John Anthony Boggs of The Florida Bar's letter confirming Matthew Triggs of Proskauer violation of The Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, a violation of his Supreme Court public office position. To note Kelly Overstreet Johnson was copied on this and accepts the document while failing to disclose that she has a major conflict in that she works directly for Christopher Wheeler's brother, James Wheeler at a small Florida law firm Broad & Cassel.
435	2004 07 28 Iviewit request to the Commissioner of Patents to suspend ALL patents and trademarks of Iviewit's for 12 more months.
436	2004 07 29 - Supreme Court of Florida Ruling that the style of the Florida Supreme Court case has been changed from Iviewit Holdings, Inc. v. The Florida Bar to Eliot Bernstein, et. al versus The Florida Bar
437	2004 07 29 Florida Supreme Court Case #SCO4-1078 Ruling that The Florida Bar must halt the planned destruction of the Iviewit bar complaints against Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer. Although they halted this, when they decided to abandon the case, the only Order they gave was in favor of The Florida Bar to destroy the evidence, inapposite Florida record retention laws.
438	2004 07 29 Florida Supreme Court Case #SCO4-1078 Ruling that The Florida Bar must halt the planned destruction of the Iviewit bar complaints against Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer. Although they halted this, when they decided to abandon the case, the only Order they gave was in favor of The Florida Bar to destroy the evidence, inapposite Florida record retention laws.
439	2004 07 29 Debroah Yarborough, clerk of the Florida Supreme Court message regarding the ruling that The Florida Bar halt destruction of the Iviewit bar complaints at The Florida Bar message.
440	2004 08 03 The Florida Bar counsel Eric M. Turner letter trying to explain why the Matthew Triggs complaint for violations of his public office position with The Florida Bar is not being docketed due to its being faxed. The complaint was then mailed but still The Florida Bar never docketed the case. It is remarkable that with a complaint lodged against him in the matters, Turner was allowed to continue acting in the matters.
441	2004 08 09 Japanese Patent Office investigation letter. Very interesting in that the JPO tries to claim that there is no such thing as fraud in Japan???
442	2004 08 11 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Orders the complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer, Raymond Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel and Steven C. Krane to be moved for immediate investigation due to the appearance of impropriety and conflicts. The case was then transferred to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department where further conflicts with Krane were discovered that derailed the investigation and caused a flurry of further complaints against the Second Department members.
443	2004 08 11 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Orders the complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer, Raymond Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel and Steven C. Krane to be moved for immediate investigation due to the appearance of impropriety and conflicts. The case was then transferred to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department where further conflicts with Krane were discovered that derailed the investigation and caused a flurry of further complaints against the Second Department members.
444	2004 08 19 Iviewit letter to Andrew H. Goodman of the Virginia Bar regarding the William J. Dick bar complaint and noticing the Virginia Bar of conflicts and violations of public offices found in new York and Florida regarding those investigations. Information from the Florida Bar and the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee was used in Dick's defense of the bar complaint. This should have caused at minimum review of the Dick matters.
445	2004 08 23 Iviewit letter to the FBI Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi regarding his taking the matters to the US Attorney.
446	2004 08 25 Iviewit letter to Andrew H. Goodman of the Virginia Bar regarding the William J. Dick bar complaint and noticing the Virginia Bar of conflicts and violations of public offices found in new York and Florida regarding those investigations. Information from the Florida Bar and the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee was used in Dick's defense of the bar complaint. This should have caused at minimum review of the Dick matters.
447	2004 08 27 Patent Office correspondence.
448	2004 09 07 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Thomas Cahill's cover letter transferring the complaints of Steven C. Krane, Proskauer, Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao & Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel due to the unanimous decision by five justices of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department. Very interesting that Cahill handles this as he is part of an ongoing investigation for his part in the crimes at the court and thus acts in conflict and violation of his public office. What is damning is that Cahill tries to impart to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department that they are do as they please with the cases, which is not what the justices ordered, they ordered IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION, yet Cahill tries to help himself and his buddies out of the mess again.
449	2004 09 08 NEWS ARTICLE - Sony release a zoom TV.
450	2004 09 09 Steven C. Krane of Proskauer Rose, after being implicated for conflicts and violations of his Supreme Court and other public office positions violations starts working on a new biography of himself cutting what is implicating from his past as if it would disappear from his cover up. This is as funny as the picture of Krane at the Proskauer website where he replaces the picture where he weighs about 500 pounds with one from years earlier before he engorged himself in greed. You can run but you cannot hide Mr. Unethical.
451	2004 09 11 Iviewit files with LAWYERS FUND FOR CLIENT
452	PROTECTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
453	2004 09 07 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Thomas Cahill's cover letter transferring the complaints of Steven C. Krane, Proskauer, Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao & Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel due to the unanimous decision by five justices of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department. Very interesting that Cahill handles this as he is part of an ongoing investigation for his part in the crimes at the court and thus acts in conflict and violation of his public office. What is damning is that Cahill tries to impart to the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department that they are do as they please with the cases, which is not what the justices ordered, they ordered IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION, yet Cahill tries to help himself and his buddies out of the mess again.
454	2004 09 21 Iviewit letter to Andrew Goodman of the Virginia Bar regarding William Dick of Foley & Lardner bar complaint, noticing the VA bar of the violations of public offices found in New York and Florida in the related attorney complaints of Christopher Clark Wheeler, Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao, Steven C. Krane and Matthew Triggs.
455	2004 09 22 United States Patent & Trademark Office second six month Suspension Notice. Note that the USPTO claims they are being suspended pending investigation into the inventor and other issues presented. The patents remain in limbo.
456	2004 10 05 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Diana Maxfield Kearse trying to get Steven C. Krane, Proskauer, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao out of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Court ORDER for immediate investigation by claiming she reviewed and found no evidence of misconduct. This decision despite that she was ordered to investigate by five justice who reviewed the materials and found reason to Order investigations. No of the accused had to put a defense up, no witnesses were contacted, no evidence tested and then Kearse admits that she is conflicted with Krane but refuses to answer questions regarding her conflict and tells Iviewit to put any request for that information in writing. Kearse is charged with a complaint for her undisclosed conflicts after she fails to respond to the written request for disclosure of her conflicts with both Krane and Judge Judith Kaye.
457	2004 10 07 Iviewit Petition to the Florida Supreme Court requesting intervention in the Boca Raton Police Department investigation and the FBI investigation as they tried to set up a fake meeting with members of the SEC and this caused grave concerns that it was to intimidate inventor Bernstein to drop his charges against the Boca PD regarding their failure to investigate and possible internal corruptions.
458	2004 10 08 Taped Florida Bar message confirming Matthew Triggs of Proskauer's dates of service with The Florida Bar. This confirms that Triggs acted in violation of his public office when he represented Christopher C. Wheeler in his Florida Bar complaint.
459	2004 10 08 Florida Supreme Court SC104 1078 Iviewit Petition to the Florida Supreme Court requesting intervention in the Boca Raton Police Department investigation and the FBI investigation as they tried to set up a fake meeting with members of the SEC and this caused grave concerns that it was to intimidate inventor Bernstein to drop his charges against the Boca PD regarding their failure to investigate and possible internal corruptions.
460	2004 10 08 Taped Florida Bar message confirming Matthew Triggs of Proskauer's dates of service with The Florida Bar. This confirms that Triggs acted in violation of his public office when he represented Christopher C. Wheeler in his Florida Bar complaint.
461	2004 10 10 Letter from David White of the European Patent Office regarding starting investigations with the legal department.
462	2004 10 11 Florida Supreme Court Ruling in Case #SCO4-1078 that the Florida Bar is to respond to the Iviewit Petition. This despite Eric Montel Turner's prior claims that the Florida Supreme Court would not be able to review the matters as The Florida Bar was the final arbiter.
463	2004 10 13 - Iviewit Florida Supreme Court case docket #SC104-1078 Update Docket cert
464	2004 10 13 AIG D&O letter, stating they are investigating the matters.
465	2004 10 15 Florida Supreme Court Denial of Motion for protective custody and to over sight investigations at the FBI and Boca Raton PD for failure to invoke courts jurisdiction.
466	2004 10 15 Florida Supreme Court Denial of Motion for Declaratory Relief; Intervene in Third Party Investigations of the Boca Raton Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission with the Courts oversight to ensure due process and an emergency order for the Immediate Protective Custody of Eliot I. Bernstein, Candice M. Bernstein, Joshua EZ Bernstein, Jacob NA Bernstein, Daniel EAO Bernstein, P. Stephen Lamont & P. Stephen Lamont II - Failure to Invoke Court Jurisdiction
467	2004 10 15 United States Patent & Trademark Office correspondence regarding suspensions.
468	2004 10 18 Iviewit letter to Martin Gold and Paul Curran to move the complaint of Thomas J. Cahill from the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee to a non conflicted third party, based on the Court Order for investigation of Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose, Steven C. Krane and Raymond Joao due to conflicts and the appearance of impropriety.
469	2004 10 18 Kelly Overstreet Johnson, President of The Florida Bar read receipt on Service of the Florida Supreme Court petition. Johnson fails to disclose at this time or previously that she has conflict with Christopher C. Wheeler's brother, James Wheeler of Broad & Cassel, as she works for him at the law firm.
470	2004 10 20 AIG POLICY 872-99-99 showing Brian G. Utley committed fraud on the application and that the policy is issued on a non-existent company.
471	2004 10 20 AIG POLICY 872-99-99 showing Brian G. Utley committed fraud on the application and that the policy is issued on a non-existent company.
472	2004 10 22 Eric Turner of The Florida Bar response to the Iviewit Petition filed with the Florida Supreme Court. There are no comments on this document but try to pick out the numerous grammatical errors for fun. The response addresses none of the issues in the filed Petition and thus Iviewit moves for a default judgement.
473	2004 10 22 Eric Turner of The Florida Bar response to the Iviewit Petition filed with the Florida Supreme Court. There are comments on this document showing the illiteracy of the response. The response addresses none of the issues in the filed Petition and thus Iviewit moves for a default judgement.
474	2004 10 22 Florida Bar to Supreme Court eib comments
475	2004 10 25 Petition Response 09 522 721.zip
476	2004 10 26 Iviewit letter response to Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Diana Maxfield Kearse, rebutting her decision in spite of the Court Order for investigation, to dismiss the complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose, Steven C. Krane, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel and Raymond Joao on review, not investigation. The letter also asks Kearse to disclose the conflicts she had with Krane and Judge Judith Kaye in writing as she requested.
477	2004 10 26 Iviewit letter response to Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Diana Maxfield Kearse, rebutting her decision in spite of the Court Order for investigation, to dismiss the complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose, Steven C. Krane, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel and Raymond Joao on review, not investigation. The letter also asks Kearse to disclose the conflicts she had with Krane and Judge Judith Kaye in writing as she requested.
478	2004 10 26 St Paul Insurance Company investigation letter written by law firm Garcia & Stallone regarding Raymond A. Joao fraud issues.
479	2004 11 04 Florida Department of Professional Regulation letter requesting more information regarding the complaints filed against Gerald Lewin, Erika Lewin and Goldstein Lewin & Co. CPA's. Iviewit was forced to take complaints here as the AICPA suddenly in the middle of investigation terminated their investigation stating they had no money and told Iviewit to take the complaints to the DPR who later dismissed the complaints, wonder how much this cost.
480	2004 11 04 Iviewit filed with Florida Supreme Court a Motion to Extend Response SC04-1078.
481	2004 11 09 - Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chief Counsel, Diana Maxfield Kearse, stating that a committee member would review if the complaints ordered for investigation by the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department justices would be reopened for investigation, note no investigation was ever done but later as they get deeper in their bs, they try to state that the review was an investigation and thus they complied with the First Department order.
482	2004 11 10 - Florida Supreme Court - Grant Extension of Time
483	2004 11 11 Florida Supreme Court Case #SC04-1078 Iviewit response to The Florida Bar response to the Iviewit Petition filed.
484	2004 11 15 Florida Supreme Court Case #SC04-1078 Iviewit response to The Florida Bar response to the Iviewit Petition filed.
485	2004 11 15 Florida Supreme Court Case #SC04-1078 Iviewit response to The Florida Bar response to the Iviewit Petition filed.
486	2004 11 15 Florida Supreme Court Case #SC04-1078 Iviewit response to The Florida Bar response to the Iviewit Petition filed. CERT
487	2004 11 22 Iviewit letter response to Garcia and Stallone in regard to the fraud exposed with their client Raymond A. Joao whose is covered by St. Paul Insurance. Letter notifies them that Joao was ordered for investigation by the First Department which he failed to disclose to St. Paul.
488	2004 11 25 European Patent Office letter response to letters exposing them to fraud on the USPTO and Iviewit.
489	2004 11 30 08-59 THE STATE OF NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS PSL G.
490	2004 12 15 Delray Beach Florida Drunk Driving Arrest Report for Felony DUI with injury against Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer Rose. You gotta read what his wife says, go Deanna!!!
491	2004 12 15 Delray Beach Florida Drunk Driving Arrest Report for Felony DUI with injury against Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer Rose. You gotta read what his wife says, go Deanna!!!
492	2004 12 20 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chairman, Lawrence DiGiovanna's review of Kearse decision and siding with her decision to not investigate and dismiss based on review, despite the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department court Order to investigate, not review. For his part in obfuscating justice a complaint is filed against both Kearse and DiGiovanna which both go undocketed and procedurally are derailed by Kearse who even handles the complaint against herself???
493	2004 12 22 United States Patent & Trademark Office letter to James Groody regarding the patent suspensions.
494	2004 12 24 Stephen Kaye of Proskauer Rose biography, yes this is the husband of Judge Judith Kaye, whose former law clerk was Steven Krane, partner with Stephen Kaye at Proskauer in the Intellectual Property group that was formed immediately after Proskauer took disclosures of the Iviewit inventions, then ran out and hired Rubenstein with his MPEGLA pools to steal the Iviewit inventions. Here we finally see how the denial of due process in New York was being effectuated and how the crimes were going uninvestigated and were derailed.
495	2004 12 24 Steven C. Krane of Proskauer Rose, after being implicated for conflicts and violations of his Supreme Court and other public office positions violations starts working on a new biography of himself cutting what is implicating from his past as if it would disappear from his cover up. This is as funny as the picture of Krane at the Proskauer website where he replaces the picture where he weighs about 500 pounds with one from years earlier before he engorged himself in greed. You can run but you cannot hide Mr. Unethical.
496	2005 01 10 Iviewit letter response to 2004 12 20 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee's, Chairman, Lawrence DiGiovanna's review of Kearse decision to not investigate inapposite of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department order to investigate and other issues regarding conflicts with Steven C. Krane and Chief Judge Judith Kaye.
497	2005 01 12 - Florida Supreme Court Petition For All Writs Jurisdiction filed by Iviewit is denied and allows the Florida Bar to destroy the Iviewit complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler to be destroyed. After receiving a non response to the Petition filed by The Florida Bar, that wholly failed to respond to the substantive issues of the Petition the Florida Supreme Court ordered them to respond to. The case is thrown so that the Florida Supreme Court does not have to account for its members of The Florida Bar or be liable for them, as it is learned there is a major conflict of interest between the Florida Supreme Court and the Florida Bar, in that the Florida Supreme Court insurance policy covers the state actors who work for The Florida Bar, which is under the aegis of The Florida Supreme Court as a direct extension of that court. My how the conflicts continue to pile up, The Florida Supreme Court should have refused the case and sent it to a federal court as they were conflicted. This decision means that complaints against Matthew Triggs of Proskauer who violated his public offices are not docketed and disposed of according to Florida law and acts to protect Proskauer from immediate prosecution. This aiding and abetting is to be challenged next at the United States Supreme Court, that also denies to hear the case, which acts further to prevent the complaints from formal disposition and the crimes to get buried.
498	2005 01 12 - Florida Supreme Court - Order, Petitioners Motion for Judgment Non Prosequitur is Hereby Denied, There goes due process and the right to complain against government officials found violating Supreme Court rules. Hello Communist America.
499	2005 01 12 Florida Supreme Court Petition for All Writs Jurisdiction Denied ~ Destroy Files
500	2005 01 13 09 587 734 United States Patent & Trademark Office approval of additional six month suspension based on allegations of fraud on the USPTO and Iviewit.
501	2005 01 25 - Draft Iviewit response to Florida Supreme Court Ruling
502	2005 01 26 SC04-1078 Iviewit filed with Supreme Court of Florida for a Motion for Rehearing Clarification and Certification.
503	2005 02 03 Palm Beach Post NEWS ARTICLE regarding Delray Beach Florida Drunk Driving Felony DUI with injury charges against Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer Rose.
504	2005 02 05 - BOCA RATON NEWS ARTICLE Regarding Christopher Wheeler's DUI. What is amazing to note is that Eric M. Turner of The Florida Bar (the guy who derails the Wheeler complaints filed by Iviewit) attempts to defend Christopher Wheeler for his drunk driving charges and he falsely states to the press that the DUI was a Misdemeanor when in fact, it was charged as a felony due to the injuries suffered by the victim. The DUI was a Felony charge as injury was incurred and as noted in the Police Report. This shows unequivocally that Turner will go to any length to protect Wheeler using The Florida Bar to achieve this end. Wheeler's license was not suspended due to his DUI, perhaps Turner defended him. Wonder if they had to give Turner a second briefcase for this?
505	2005 02 05 Florida Sun Sentinel NEWS ARTICLE regarding the arrest of Christopher Wheeler of Proskauer for felony DUI with injury.
506	2005 02 14 09 630 939 United States Patent & Trademark Office approval of additional six month suspension based on allegations of fraud on the USPTO and Iviewit.
507	2005 02 15 The Florida Bar responds to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the Motion for Clarification, Rehearing and Certification filed by Iviewit.
508	2005 02 23 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department, Clerk, James E. Pelzer letter stating he is taking the matter of the decisions to review by Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, instead of investigating as ordered by the First Department justices to the Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department, A. Gail Prudenti, for a decision.
509	2005 02 23 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department, Clerk, James E. Pelzer letter stating he is taking the matter of the decisions to review by Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, instead of investigating as ordered by the First Department justices to the Presiding Justice of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department, A. Gail Prudenti, for a decision.
510	2005 02 25 Iviewit response to the European Patent Office legal department, Lise Dybdahl, letter requesting suspension of the European patent applications.
511	2005 03 01 Iviewit filed Motion to Florida Supreme Court Case SC04-1078 regarding keeping The Florida Bar files on Christopher C. Wheeler, Proskauer, Matthew Triggs, Eric M. Turner, John Anthony Boggs, Lorraine Christine Hoffman, Kenneth Marvin and others for review by the United States Supreme Court and other investigators. Requesting files be maintained according to Florida Record Retention laws + for the 20 year life of the patents, as the records are invaluable records and contain information in the files of violations of public offices and other matters that have not been investigated.
512	2005 03 05 Florida Supreme Court Docket Entry with the Christopher Wheeler of Proskauer Driving Under the Influence Felony Charge against him, welcome to Supreme Court history Chris, as the biggest ahole in court history.
513	2005 03 09 Insipid Little Cockroaches of Minimal Brain. Self explanatory draft.
514	2005 03 11 Iviewit letter to Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department, Clerk, James E. Pelzer regarding conflicts of interest found with State of New York Court of Appeals, Chief Judge of the State of New York, Judith S. Kaye and Steven C. Krane and asking that any new investigators sign that they have no conflicts with any of the Iviewit accused to prevent further conflicts which force further complaints.
515	2005 03 14 Pictures of the Car Bombing of Inventor Bernstein's Family Minivan that fire investigator Rick Lee of the Boynton Beach Fire Department claimed was caused by accelarants and blew up three cars next to it. The FBI appears to have lost both the investigation files and the investigator regarding this and the Iviewit matters. The images use Iviewit technology for zoom and panning on the images. Check out where the minivan hood was blown out, was this where the car bomb was???
516	2005 03 14 Pictures of the Car Bombing of Inventor Bernstein's Family Minivan that fire investigator Rick Lee of the Boynton Beach Fire Department claimed was caused by accelarants and blew up three cars next to it. The FBI appears to have lost both the investigation files and the investigator regarding this and the Iviewit matters. The images use Iviewit technology for zoom and panning on the images. Check out where the minivan hood was blown out, was this where the car bomb was???
517	2005 03 16 Iviewit letter to Stephen Lucchesi of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the bombing of inventor Eliot I. Bernstein's family minivan and request that he enjoin investigation per Rick Lee of Boynton Beach Florida fire department. This letter and the rest of the two years of Iviewit files regarding the patent crimes and other crimes against the United States are lost and so is Lucchesi who disappears from the Department of Justice and even they do not know where he is. The FBI Palm Beach office refers the matter to the Department of Justice Inspector General, Glenn Fine, who requests that the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility investigate.
518	2005 03 16 Iviewit letter to Stephen Lucchesi of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the bombing of inventor Eliot I. Bernstein's family minivan and request that he enjoin investigation per Rick Lee of Boynton Beach Florida fire department. This letter and the rest of the two years of Iviewit files regarding the patent crimes and other crimes against the United States are lost and so is Lucchesi who disappears from the Department of Justice and even they do not know where he is. The FBI Palm Beach office refers the matter to the Department of Justice Inspector General, Glenn Fine, who requests that the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility investigate.
519	2005 03 17 Hague Police to have FBI contact them.
520	2005 03 18 Diana Maxfield Kearse, Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee sends a letter stating that they had lost a letter and it was mysteriously returned by the post office. The letter attempts to claim an investigation was done by a Committee in hopes that the fact that she reviewed the matter and dismissed it on review was now moot somehow. What fails to be noted is the fact that this was an investigation that none of the accused had to respond to, no witnesses provided were interviewed, no documents were examined. This document serves for further charges against Kearse for even attempting to use the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee letterhead to continue the cover up for the accused. The document appears to be evidence of mail fraud as well.
521	2005 03 27 Steven Krane NYSBA Positions.
522	2005 04 05 Krane ties to Bush.
523	2005 04 09 New York Supreme Second Dept Pelzer Letter Krane comments
524	2005 04 09 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department, Clerk, James E. Pelzer, letter whereby Pelzer, who is not an actor in the disciplinary, now attempts to claim that A. Gail Prudenti had decided to blow off the investigations, which he tries to now claim were completed, although all prior information states no investigation was done in lieu of being dismissed on review, inapposite the First Department court order stating immediate investigation was to be done. He attempts to defend Krane, showing his obvious bias, instead of relying on the supposed investigations conclusions where we are sure Krane had a lawyer representing his interests. This attempts to conclude based on a dismissal on review that Krane was not conflicted using department letterhead to deny due process and form a defense for Krane. Pelzer nor Prudenti are part of the disciplinary process and are conflicted with Krane and Kaye and what is amazing is that they should be responding to the First Department court that ordered the investigation, not Eliot Bernstein and Stephen Lamont. This is very telling.
525	2005 04 20 Response to 2005 04 09 Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division Second Department, Clerk, James E. Pelzer, letter. Very interesting reading into how due process was denied and how court ordered investigations were derailed.
526	2005 04 25 Florida Supreme Court Denial of Motion for Rehearing Clarification and Certification.
527	2005 04 25 Pataki & Spitzer Cover Letter for Document
528	2005 05 25 European Patent Office "EPO" letter denying suspension of European patents and referring the matters of fraud on the EPO to the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office "EPI" which regulates licensed legal representatives. Later the EPI during an investigation, sends over documents including a document in response to an official office action that is missing exhibits and the language of the letter is altered, evidencing fraud on the EPO. Iviewit has requested immediate intervention by the FBI and Interpol to inspect the documents for forgery and fraud upon the EPO, this has gone into limbo, especially because the FBI investigator and Iviewit FBI files are now missing from the FBI. The matters of the FBI have been elevated to the Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine and H. Marshall Jarrett of the FBI Office of Professional Responsibility for investigation.
529	2005 06 18 - Iviewit Florida Supreme Court Case Docket SC04-1078.
530	2005 06 18 Iviewit letter to James Groody of the United States Patent & Trademark Office & Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine regarding the USPTO suspensions.
531	2005 06 20 Letter to USPTO, FBI and others regarding viral attachments to emails and reporting of such activity to the Internet Crime Bureau.
532	2005 06 27 Department of Business Professional Regulation Lewin.
533	2005 07 13 Supreme Court Petition for Extension of Time.
534	2005 07 20 - 09 587730 United States Patent & Trademark Office suspension, second six months out of three possible.
535	2005 08 14 Steven C. Krane at Proskauer is counsel for the New York State Bar Association.
536	2005 08 26 Letter from the European Patent Office regarding patent filing 00955352 being lost.
537	2005 10 03 United States Patent & Trademark Office dismisses Iviewit Petition to revive abandoned patent 09 522 721, although Moatz has requested that all abandoned patents be revived. Interesting that it is sent to Blakely Sokoloff after Iviewit had filed to have all prior patent counsel removed from the applications as they are and remain under investigation by Harry I. Moatz, Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline for the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
538	2005 10 05 Iviewit Patent 09 587 026 Notice of Abandonment from the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
539	2005 11 18 Chris Mercer of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office EPI Mercer Investigation. This investigation would at first be closed and then reopened leading to discovery of fraudulent documents in the EPO files.
540	2005 11 28 United States Supreme Court Denial of Writ of Certiorari to review the Florida Supreme Court case. This wholly blocks Iviewit from filing complaints against public officers found violating Florida Supreme Court office positions.
541	2005 12 21 Iviewit response to the European Patent Office regarding suspending the patents pending investigations of fraud on the EPO.
542	2006 01 06 inewswire.
543	2006 01 07 Iviewit News Release regarding Representative Nita M. Lowey (D-NY 18th) taking the Iviewit matters to Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, who then forwards the matters for investigation to the House Judiciary Committee, under the direction of The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th).
544	2006 01 18 Iviewit NEWS ARTICLE by Sachin Garg of Eworld. Garg was threatened by unknown parties to take down the article.
545	2006 01 19 NEWS ARTICLE "Tech Dirt" reports on Iviewit.
546	2006 03 03 United States Patent & Trademark Office Commissioner letter response to Iviewit letter to John J. Doll.
547	2006 04 06 Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office letter to refile the Iviewit complaints and be more specific.
548	2006 04 19 Iviewit letter to The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein written at the direction of Harry I. Moatz who stated Iviewit would need congressional help on certain issues, like getting information on IP that was listed on the Iviewit IP dockets as Iviewit's but is not on file with the United States Patent & Trademark Office the same and where the USPTO cannot release information to Iviewit as the inventors are not listed on certain applications and the owners and assignees are not Iviewit.
549	2006 04 19 Iviewit letter to The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein written at the direction of Harry I. Moatz who stated Iviewit would need congressional help on certain issues, like getting information on IP that was listed on the Iviewit IP dockets as Iviewit's but is not on file with the United States Patent & Trademark Office the same and where the USPTO cannot release information to Iviewit as the inventors are not listed on certain applications and the owners and assignees are not Iviewit.
550	2006 06 16 Iviewit response to the Florida Department of Business and Professional Relations regarding their finding of no probably cause regarding Gerald Lewin, Erika Lewin and Goldstein Lewin & Co. sent to the Inspector General of the DBPR.
551	2006 07 25 Charlie Crist conflict with Foley & Lardner article, may provide answers as to how the Iviewit complaints were derailed in Florida.
552	2006 08 02 Institute of Professional Reperesentatives before the European Patent Office, Chris Mercer letter.
553	2006 08 14 Iviewit letter to Chris Mercer, President, Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office demanding investigation.
554	2006 08 19 US SUPREME COURT CASE 05-6611 Iviewit case docket.
555	2006 09 19 Institute of Professional Representative before the European Patent Office letter response to Iviewit letter of August 2, 2006.
556	2006 09 29 Iviewit to Nita Lowey US Congress.
557	2006 11 03 Stephen R. Kaye of Proskauer Rose and husband to Chief Judge of New York, Judith Kaye, death notice. Now have to sue estate for his involvement. Strange that Kaye becomes a partner in the IP department of Proskauer???
558	2006 11 28 Representative Nita M. Lowey (D-NY 18th) letter to Iviewit that she was transferring the Iviewit case matters to incoming Chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th). Dingell then forwards the matters to The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th) - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee where the matters are under investigation.
559	2006 Kaye Proskauer Owns New York Article.
560	2006 Proskauer link to Valerie Plame issues.
561	2007 01 11 Iviewit Press Release regarding Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th) sending the Iviewit matters to The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th) - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee where it sits in review.
562	2007 01 18 Iviewit letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding the Iviewit matters forwarded by Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th).
563	2007 01 19 Iviewit Press Release regarding Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI 15th) sending the Iviewit matters to The Honorable John Conyers Jr. (D-MI 14th) - Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee where it sits in review. Final.
564	2007 01 28 Lou Dobbs of CNN on Skull & Bones. It is interesting to note that Skull and Bones member Luce started Time which owns CNN.
565	2007 02 01 FINAL Iviewit request to The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) for congressional aid in the Iviewit matters.
566	2007 02 01 List of ongoing and derailed investigations included in the petition for congressional aid for the Iviewit matters.
567	2007 02 05 Iviewit letter response to the European Patent Office letter tendered by Wim van der Eijk.
568	2007 04 05 President of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office, Chris Mercer letter response to Iviewit, this leads to learning that documents at the European Patent Office are fraudulent and have been changed in route to the EPO.
569	2007 04 09 Iviewit Response to EPO Letter FINAL.
570	2007 04 10 Wim van der Eijk letter from the European Patent Office in response to 2007 02 05 Iviewit letter.
571	2007 04 17 Iviewit Request for FBI IA and OIG investigation of FBI case.
572	2007 04 20 Iviewit request for the Federal Bureau of Investigations to launch an internal affairs probe into the missing case files of Iviewit, missing car bombing files regarding the bombing of inventor Bernstein's family minivan and the missing FBI investigator Stephen Lucchesi.
573	2007 06 11 EPO response from Wim van der Ejik regarding the documents sent by Chris Mercer, President of the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office during his investigation which clearly show that documents were tampered with that were sent to the EPO for the patents.
574	2007 06 14 Iviewit request for the Federal Bureau of Investigations to launch an internal affairs probe into the missing case files of Iviewit, missing car bombing files regarding the bombing of inventor Bernstein's family minivan and the missing FBI investigator Stephen Lucchesi. FINAL
575	2007 06 18 Enron Broadband Exec Sentenced.
576	2007 06 28 Iviewit letter sent to Alain Pompidou, President of the European Patent Office c/o Aidan Kendrick and Wim van der Eijk, Principal Director of the European Patent Office regarding the fraudulent documents found in the investigation by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office.
577	2007 07 16 United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Office of Professional Responsibility, H. Marshall Jarrett, Counsel begins review of the Iviewit matters regarding missing FBI case files for the Iviewit matters, the matters of the car bombing of inventor Bernstein's family minivan and the missing FBI investigator, Stephen Lucchesi.
578	2001 07 17 Iviewit Patent IP docket prepared by Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman showing patents were filed for Brian Utley by Foley & Lardner by Douglas Boehm and Steven Becker under the direction of William J. Dick and other problems.
579	2007 Denial of Due Process Exhibit.
580	2007 07 23 Iviewit New York State Commission of Investigation Complaint.
581	2007 07 30 NEWS ARTICLE - Jerusalem Post article showing how Proskauer aided Nazi cause and prevented boycott of Germany, allowing further mass destruction of human life. In Jewish lingo, Jews who aided and abetted Nazi's were deemed Judenrat.
582	2007 07 30 Jerusalem Post Proskauer Aided Nazi Cause.
583	2007 08 05 NEWS ARTICLE "Expose Corrupt Courts" article regarding Thomas J. Cahill of the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee involved in whitewashing complaints.
584	2007 08 08 Cahill problems in New York 1.xps
585	2007 08 09 and 19 State of New York Commission of Investigation letter from Anthony Cartusciello, Deputy Commissioner, denying investigation even though Thomas Cahill corruptions are being exposed at the First Department.
586	2007 08 09 2007 08 09 and 19 State of New York Commission of Investigation letter from Anthony Cartusciello, Deputy Commissioner, denying investigation even though Thomas Cahill corruptions are being exposed at the First Department.
587	2007 08 10 Enron Broadband Article Re Execs seeking dismissal.
588	2007 08 18 Iviewit letter to Andrew Cuomo regarding the uncovering of public office corruption of Thomas Cahill, Chief Counsel of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and to open immediate investigation of Cahill and the investigations of Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane, Raymond A. Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel and others involved in the denial of due process of the Iviewit complaints.
589	2007 08 18 Iviewit letter to State of New York Commission of Investigation, Anthony Cartusciello, Deputy Commissioner, in rebuttal to his denying investigation in light of the unfolding ethics scandal at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and request to reconsider.
590	2007 08 27 The Nation - Gonzales Resigns.
591	2007 09 05 Iviewit letter to Eliot Spitzer as Governor of New York to begin immediate investigation in light of the unfolding ethics scandal at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee and Thomas J. Cahill and request to reopen all Iviewit cases against members of the department and those involved in the theft of Iviewit Intellectual properties.
592	2007 09 24 New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo letter denying Iviewit investigation.
593	2007 10 08 Christine C. Anderson lawsuit Case No. 07 Civ. 9599 (SAS) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al. in the United States District Court Southern District of New York under The Honorable Justice Shira A. Scheindlin. The filed complaint by Anderson who was an attorney for the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee who names Iviewit as part of her claims of the department "whitewashing" complaints, destroying case file information, physical assault for not following orders and other public office crimes. Anderson claims Thomas J. Cahill and others are involved. Cahill is the former Chief Counsel who resigned as the scandal began breaking who handled the Iviewit complaints and is currently under investigation by Martin Gold.
594	2007 10 31 New York Law Journal Exposes allegations of corruption at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee regarding Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel, who resigns amist the unfolding scandal and the whistleblower lawsuit filed by former employee of the First Department Disciplinary Committee, Christine C. Anderson. Case No. 07 Civ. 9599 (SAS) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al. in the United States District Court Southern District of New York under The Honorable Justice Shira A. Scheindlin.
595	2007 11 01 New York Times exposes allegations of corruption at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee regarding Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel, who resigns amist the unfolding scandal and the whistleblower lawsuit filed by former employee of the First Department Disciplinary Committee, Christine C. Anderson. Case No. 07 Civ. 9599 (SAS) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al. in the United States District Court Southern District of New York under The Honorable Justice Shira A. Scheindlin.
596	2007 11 22 Iviewit Press Release regarding the New York Law Journal and New York Times exposing allegations of corruption at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee regarding Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel, who resigns amist the unfolding scandal and the whistleblower lawsuit filed by former employee of the First Department Disciplinary Committee, Christine C. Anderson. Case No. 07 Civ. 9599 (SAS) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al. in the United States District Court Southern District of New York under The Honorable Justice Shira A. Scheindlin.
597	2007 12 11 Iviewit preliminary filing of 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York under The Honorable Justice Shira A. Scheindlin. The Iviewit case is in efforts to support former employee of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, Christine C. Anderson's heroic efforts to expose corruption in the department. Case No. 07 Civ. 9599 (SAS) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al.
598	2007 12 12 Iviewit filing of 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit in the United States District Court Southern District of New York under The Honorable Justice Shira A. Scheindlin. The Iviewit case, Docket No. # 07 Civ. 11196 (SAS) Eliot I. Bernstein, et al. v. Appellate Division First Department, Department Disciplinary Committee et al. is filed in effort to support former employee of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, Christine C. Anderson's heroic efforts to expose corruption in the department. Case No. 07 Civ. 9599 (SAS) Christine C. Anderson v. the State of New York, et al. The filed amended complaint adds hundreds of defendants and claims damages over one trillion dollars, as the RICO element of the case forces the Iviewit patent crimes into the filing that began as support on disciplinary matters denying due process.
599	2007 12 21 Docket No. # 07 Civ. 11196 (SAS) Eliot I. Bernstein, et al. v. Appellate Division First Department, Department Disciplinary Committee et al. United States District Court Southern District of New York, Shira A. Scheindlin MOTION FOR: APPOINTMENT OF PRO BONO COUNSEL; EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER ORIGINAL COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED ON SOME OR ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS; ORDER FOR THE UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE TO SERVE PAPERS ON REMAINING OR ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS; ACCEPT LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY OF PLANTIFF BERNSTEIN AND PLANTIFF LAMONT; ACCEPT REMOTE APPEARANCE OF PLAINTIFF BERNSTEIN FOR COURT PROCEEDINGS; AND PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLAINTIFFS FOR COURT APPEARANCES.
600	2008 01 09 Court Order United States District Court, Southern District of New York NY case 07CV 11196 SAS.
601	2008 01 15 Iviewit Press from Yonkers Tribune on UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK filing.
602	2008 01 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Memo to US Marshal re Extra Copies.
603	2008 01 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Notice to Serve Courtesy Copies on Attorney General.
604	2008 02 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Letter re missing service papers.
605	2008 03 03 USPTO Non Recordation Sheet of Assignment.
606	2008 03 05 Final Plaintiff Opposition to AG Cuomo letter email copy.
607	2008 03 05 Final Plaintiff Opposition to Proskauer letter as counsel.
608	2008 03 07 Scheindlin Order re conflicts.
609	2008 03 10 Scheindlin Order re conflicts.
610	2008 03 13 FINAL Plaintiff Response to Scheindlin March 07 2008 Order.
611	2008 03 14 FINAL Letter to NY AG to reopen investigation on new evidence.
612	2008 03 20 Memo of Law in Support of TFB Motion to Dismiss Greenberg Traurig.
613	2008 03 20 Notice of Motion for Florida Bar et al filed Greenberg Traurig.
614	2008 03 21 Order Scheindlin.
615	2008 03 28 Notice of Appearance Friedman for Foley.
616	2008 03 28 Scheindlin Order re Foley counsel.
617	2008 04 01 Motion in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss for Florida Bar et al filed Greenberg Traurig.
618	2008 04 06 FINAL FILED Motion for Allow Filing of an Amended Complaint1.
619	2008 04 07 FILED FINAL Motion in Opposition to Florida Bar.
620	2008 04 08 US Department of Justice Refuse to Investigate Letter.
621	2008 04 11 Iviewit Response to FBI OPR letter signed sent and printed copy.
622	2008 04 15 FINAL SENT TO COURT and Letter to Virginia Bar Counsel Attorney General Hall re phone conv.doc
623	2008 04 21 FINAL SIGNED Motion for Pro Bono Counsel low.
624	2008 04 23 Connell Motion for VA AG Pro Hac Vice.
625	2008 05 02 Foley Anker Appearance and letter re conflicts.
626	2008 05 02 Foley Anker to Bernstein to stop contacting Foley.
627	2008 05 09 FINAL AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RICO SIGNED COPY HIGH.doc
628	2008 05 09 FINAL AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RICO SIGNED COPY LOW.doc
629	2008 05 09 FINAL AMENDED COMPLAINT AND RICO SIGNED COPY MED.doc
630	2008 05 09 FINAL MOTION FOR PRO SE DESK TO COPY AMENDED COMPLAINT.doc
631	2008 05 09 Proskauer to Scheindlin to block amended.
632	2008 05 09 Scheindlin Order to stay amended.
633	2008 05 13 Proskauer Request for Amended Complaint.
634	2008 05 13 Request for Clarification on Order dated May 9th 2008.
635	2008 05 13 Scheindlin Order Denying Pro Se Copying.
636	2008 05 15 FINAL Motion in Opposition to Order.
637	60 233 341 - 57103-123 - Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman Utley Stolen Patents.
638	60 233 341 - 57103-123 Utley Theft.
639	60 233 344 - 57103-122 - BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN Copy Utley Theft 2.
640	60 233 344 - Utley Zoom and Pan Camera Filing.
641	872 99 99 air d&o insurance policy face page
642	Anthony Boggs Message Regarding Kelly Overstreet Johnson Cannot Accept Files - After it was discovered that she had conflicts of interest with Wheeler brother - Windows Media File
643	Armstrong Hersh Documents Part 2.
644	ARTHUR ANDERSEN FILES
645	Bankruptcy documentation of Intel/RYJO Utley Reale Hersh they file on companies they have no contracts with and get caught. At the time we did not know these were mirror companies of the shareholder companies with stolen patents. We thought they filed on the wrong companies and were idiots. It was not until the patent office told us that patents were in some of these companies that we learned that Proskauer had fraudulently set up corporations that mirrored companies and had second set of stolen patents going into them. This action was filed without company knowledge and the company found out from AOLTW/WB that this action existed.
646	Barroway Bar Complaint Final.
647	Barroway Breach Issues.doc
648	Blakely Letter to USPTO removing Utley from patents never happened.
649	Blakely patent portfolio versus Foley and Meltzer.
650	BSTZ Japanese Filings Portfolio.
651	BSTZ Japanese Filing of Utley Patent after he is gone.
652	bush-kerry-yale.
653	conspiracies.htm
654	Crossbow Ventures and on Behalf of the SBA files charges of Fraud On the United States Patent & Trademark Office with Iviewit.
655	Depositions (Eliot Bernstein, Simon Bernstein, Kenneth Rubenstein, Christopher Wheeler, Gerald Lewin, William Kasser, Brian Utley) SEARCHABLE with hyperlink comments
656	Dick Involvement with Utley at Diamond Turf Equipment, Inc. and Virginia Bar Statement.
657	Dick Statement Contradict Utley on Filing Patent.
658	Eliot Timeline of email 98-99.tif
659	Ellen DeGeneres Video Netfomercial Regarding Iviewit
660	EPO fraud filing.
661	Erika Lewin notes on corporate structure to Ernst Young Completely false and misleading.
662	Exhibit B - Tiedemann Prolow Loan Documents.
663	Exhibit B2 Utley Employment Agreement and Non Compete.
664	Exhibit I Lewin COI and Wheeler.
665	Flaster withdraw as counsel.
666	Florida supreme court case docket sc04-1078.
667	Foley Lardner Patent Portfolio submitted to the Virginia Bar. When this was sent to Harry Moatz at the United States Patent Office it was found to contain false and misleading information regarding certain patent applications.
668	FREE PRESS INTERNATIONAL Bush and Kerry both admit to being members of Skull and Bones.htm
669	Gail Prudenti Judith kayo conflict.
670	grebe1.
671	grebe2.
672	grebe3.
673	grebe4.
674	Holy Grail Articles
675	I-Newswire Press Release on Data Compression Article.
676	Investigations Master Sheet Showing Denial of Due Process and Procedure for derailed investigations.htm
677	Investor Presentation v2.ppt
678	Iviewit / Cyberfyds Early Site
679	Iviewit Master Attorney Document.
680	Iviewit Press Release Sachin Garg Eworld.
681	Iviewit Press Release.
682	Iviewit Stock Certs.
683	JOAO and Utley PATENTS.doc
684	Joao at Dreier Baritz Law Firm.
685	Joao at Dugan and Dugan PC.
686	Joao destroying documents.
687	Joao distance learning patent.
688	JOAO FIRST BILLING MISSING FEBRUARY FILING WHICH HE HAS RECEIPT FOR< WHERE DID IT GO?.
689	Joao Inventions 2.MDI
690	Joao Inventions List.
691	Jiao patents 2.mdi
692	Jiao patents.
693	Joao was told of bad claims prior to filing by Utley.
694	Joao's biggest client himself article.
695	Johnson receipt of Triggs complaint.
696	Kasser Corporate Books.
697	Kaye Article Proskauer In Firm
698	kayo Prudenti accepts awards for her.
699	kayo Prudenti on board together.
700	kayo Prudenti problems in other case.
701	Krane bio 2
702	Krane President of NY Bar Rubenstein.
703	Krane Proskauer Bio.
704	Krane Suicide Letter Tendered in Conflict and Violation of Public Office in Response to Complaint against him and Proskauer
705	Letter to Jackie Selebi President of Interpol.
706	Letter to the Honorable Senator Dianne Feinstein D California Signed.
707	Lewin Deposition Fingering Rubenstein
708	Lewin Deposition on Memory page 666
709	LEWIN video
710	list of bar actions and others
711	List of Patent Suspensions
712	List of State Federal and other crimes
713	Lucchesi letter re Interpol.
714	Mark Gaffney Supporting Documents.htm
715	Matthew Triggs of Proskauer represents Wheeler while in blackout period of his Supreme Court of Florida Bar position in conflict of interest and violation of public office.
716	missing inventors Jiao and foley.
717	missing inventors Jiao patents told to wheeler and Foley 1.wav
718	missing inventors Jiao patents told to wheeler and Foley 2.wav
719	Motion for Mistrial Version 4_Final.
720	Motion for Rubenstein and Wheeler to resume depositions.
721	Narine Bar Complaint Final.
722	NDA - Goldman Sachs - Jeffrey Friedstein.
723	NDA Infringers.
724	node violators
725	New York State Bar Represented by Proskauer Rose making whole bar disciplinary system conflicted.
726	News Crossbow Iviewit Investment 1500000
727	News Crossbow Iviewit Investment 1500000
728	New York Bar Association STRIKE RUBENSTEIN RESPONSE - COMPLAINT AGAINST KRANE.
729	office of solicitor general.
730	Officers Directors Professionals Summary Version 2.doc
731	Outline of Crimes
732	Patent Pool Infringers
733	patentforfraud.htm
734	press Ellen DeGeneres full story.
735	Proskauer Bills - Summary General Ledger.
736	Proskauer Client Infringers
737	Proskauer Intellectual Property Billings Rubenstein
738	Proskauer Patent Bills.
739	Proskauer plume Wilson lawsuit.
740	Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit - Pleadings 1 2001 05 to 2002 08
741	PROSKAUER RUBENSTEIN PATENT POOLS
742	Proskauer Technology Department 2.
743	Proskauer v Iviewit CA 01 04671 AB
744	Proskauer v Iviewit CA 01 04671 AB.
745	Proskauer Wheeler Business Plan Bills
746	Proskauer Wheeler Patent Copyright and related bills
747	Prudenti Proskauer conflicts.
748	Real 3D and Huizenga info.
749	Real 3D Opinion and Licensing Info.
750	Response to AICPA Final Executed.
751	Response_to_Garcia_Stallone_Version_1.
752	RICO CRIME CHARTS
753	Rubenstein as counsel 2.
754	Rubenstein Deposition I know nothing.
755	Rubenstein Joao Utley Filipek Meeting NY Rubenstein Office.
756	RYJO LETTER WARNING OF USING IVIEWIT TECH INTEL HERSH.
757	RYJO/INTEL claim Iviewit technologies as their own and seek intellectual properties on iviewit technology while under node
758	SBA Loan Due Diligence Utley Sends info with Rubenstein as Board Member.
759	Selz message on Rubenstein and Proskauer wheeler.
760	SHAREHOLDER STATEMENTS BOOKMARKED
761	Shareholders
762	Shareholders
763	skull 10.MDI
764	Skull 7 Bush Plame.
765	skull 8.MDI
766	skull 9.MDI
767	skull1.
768	skull2.
769	skull3 cobs news.
770	skull4.MDI
771	skull4.
772	skull5.
773	skull6.MDI
774	Stephen Selz, Esq.. message on Rubenstein and wheeler documents showing the opposite of their statements to courts and bars
775	STOCK CERT HUIZENGA CANCELLED.
776	Stock Certs for Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
777	Summary of Damages
778	Tech Dirt Iviewit News.
779	The Fight for the Grail
780	TRADEMARK ASSIGNMENTS AND LISTS.
781	USPTO cannot give information on Utley patent1.
782	USPTO CFR 37 CONSOLIDATED RULES
783	USPTO correspondence two.
784	USPTO USC Title 35 Patent Laws
785	Utley Background Lies Exposed During His Deposition forgot to put on resume Proskauer Wheeler tendered that Foley's Dick, Wheeler and himself were found stealing patents at his last job
786	Utley Deposition Dick Never Filed Patent at Diamond Turf contradicts Dick's statement to Virginia Bar that he did.
787	Utley Deposition PATENT PROBLEMS Diamond Turf 1.
788	Utley Deposition PATENT PROBLEMS Diamond Turf.
789	Utley Deposition Wheeler Knew About Diamond Turf 2.
790	Utley Deposition Wheeler Knew About Diamond Turf.
791	Utley Deposition Wheeler Never Represented Me - Wheeler contradicts this in his deposition saying he represented Utley.
792	Utley Deposition camera application.
793	UTLEY DEPOSITION DIAMOND TURF PATENT PROBLEMS.
794	Utley Deposition NO COLLEGE CLEAN.
795	Utley Deposition Patents All Assigned to Iviewit.
796	Utley Deposition Rubenstein Not An Advisor.
797	Utley Dick Attorney at DIAMOND TURF EQUIPMENT, INC..
798	Utley Patent Dispute at DIAMOND TURF EQUIPMENT, INC.
799	Utley Resume - Perfect Copy.
800	Utley Statement for Dick Foley Virginia Bar Response.
801	Utley stolen patent samples
802	Utley to Joao Major Missing Items in patent - clean copy.
803	Virginia Bar bar.
804	Virginia Bar fl bar correspondences Williams turner.
805	Weisberg and Selz orders from Schiffrin Barroway.
806	Wheeler Articles FAU Scandal & Fuzion Fraud.
807	Wheeler Deposition Iviewit Portal not Inventions.
808	Wheeler Deposition I represented Utley.
809	Wheeler Deposition Regarding Conflicts Check.
810	Wheeler deposition stating NO PATENT OPINION.
811	Wheeler Guilty of Felony DUI with Injury.
812	Wheeler supplement to deposition.
813	Wheeler/Proskauer marketing letter with client list, show's that Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer knew far more about the technology than they now claim
814	Zakirul on feasibility study.
815	Zakirul on Jiao having switch and signing patents.
816	Zakirul testimony on Jiao meeting wheeler4.wav
817	Zakirul testimony on Rubenstein Jiao meeting wheeler.
818	Zakirul testimony on Rubenstein Jiao meeting wheeler.
819	Zakirul testimony on Rubenstein Jiao meeting wheeler2.wav
820	Zakirul testimony on Rubenstein Jiao meeting wheeler2.wav
821	Zakirul testimony on signing patents.
822	Zakirul testimony on signing patents2.wav
823	ZAKIRUL SHIRAJEE SWORN STATEMENT.
824	Zakirul Shirajee testimony on Rubenstein Joao patent disclosure meetings at Wheeler's Proskauer office
825	Zakirul Shirajee testimony
826	Zakirul Shirajee testimony
827
828	2000 06 14 Proskauer Rose Generated Business Plan Iviewit with Rubenstein as Advisor Legal Counsel
829	1999 06 09 Proskauer Investigating Lewin, CPA Document and Lewin Conflict Letter re Visual Data
830	1999 06 14 Proskauer Kept Confidentiality Agreements
831	2000 08 26 Iviewit Business Plan Generated by Utley with Rubenstein as Advisor to Board Contradicting all Deposition of Rubenstein Utley and Wheeler
832	2000 06 09 Document Service International License Agreement.
833	2000 06 20 Goldman Sachs receiving Patents as Investment Banker for Iviewit
834	1999 04 26 Goldstein Lewin Financial Projections Iviewit
835	00938124.5Complete file.
836	00938126.0Complete file.
837	00942690.9Complete file.
838	00955352.0Complete file.
839	00944619.6Complete file.
840	2007 07 16 US Department of Justice Letter stating they are beginning review of the Iviewit matters
841	McKeown Order http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/McKeown/20080612%20McKeown%20Order%20to%20submit%20Judge%20affirmations%20under%20seal.pdf
842	NYAG Letter to Scheindlin
843	http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080229%20NYAG%20State%20Actors%20Letter%20to%20Hon%20Schiendlin.pdf
844	Iviewit Letter to Pataki and Spitzer
845	http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2005%2004%2022%20pataki%20and%20spitzer%20cover%20letter%20of%20Kearse%20Supreme%20letter.doc
846	NYAG Letter re Affirmations of Justices
847	http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/McKeown/20080612%20AG%20Trying%20to%20Stop%20Judges.pdf
848	NY Times Article, NYAG officials transfer to Proskauer and then later represent Spitzer in his affairs, literally @
849	http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20070518%20NY%20TIMES%20PROSKAUER%20REPRESENTS%20SPITZER%201.pdf
850	Law.com – Schnell and Cleary of NYAG join Proskauer
851	http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20070508%20NYAG%20Snell%20and%20Cleary%20at%20Proskauer.pdf
852	New York Daily News - Spitzer Hires Proskauer for his Troopergate Scandal
853	http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20071013%20Spitzer%20Hires%20Proskauer.pdf
854	VA AG HIRES FOLEY LARDNER
855	http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/VAAG%20HIRES%20FOLEY%20LARDNER.pdf
856	Dittner Returned Cashiers Checks
857	http://www.iviewit.tv/Dittner%20Eviction/20080531%20Returned%20Rent%20Checks%20for%20April%20and%20May%20delivered%20May%2031%202008.pdf
858	Dittner Case Information
859	http://www.iviewit.tv/Dittner%20Eviction/Master%20Dittner%20Eviction.pdf
860	UPS Letter Regarding Error in Times for Pickup, their mistake
861	http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20080712%20Letter%20from%20UPS%20re%20error.pdf
862	Letters Regarding Simpson Stabbing to USDOJ OIG and Garaventa
863	http://www.iviewit.tv/Simpson%20Case/20080130%20Lucas%20Simpson%20Letter%20to%20Garaventa.pdf
864	and
865	http://www.iviewit.tv/Simpson%20Case/20080130%20Lucas%20Simpson%20Letter%20to%20Tehama%20County%20Sheriff.pdf
866	20080528 Court returns Motion for Pro Bono to Re-file
867	20080528 Motion to Dismiss for Virginia Bar Defendants
868	20080530 Bush Impeachment Articles - Kucinich
869	20080530 Meltzer Affidavit of Service
870	20080530 Meltzer Lippe Cross Motion.pdf
871	20080530 Motion to Dismiss Foley Lardner Anker Supporting Case Law
872	20080530 Motion to Dismiss Foley Lardner Anker
873	20080530 Motion to Dismiss Joao
874	20080530 NYAG Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
875	20080530 NYAG Motion to Dismiss Exhibit 2
876	20080530 NYAG Motion to Dismiss Memorandum of Law in Support
877	20080603 Anker Foley & Lardner Rule 26 Response
878	20080603 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DUE TO EXTRANEOUS CIRCUMSTANCE
879	20080606 Court return of Motion to Dismiss Response filed in error ~ supposedly
880	20080616 Christine C. Anderson Docket with Eliot as Plaintiff ~ supposedly error
881	20080618 Order Granting Extension of Time
882	20080712 Letter from UPS re error
883	20080712 UPS Package ERROR letter regarding MTD response
884	20080714 FINAL SIGNED Supp Extension Time and Opposition to Motions to Dismiss
885	20080714 FINAL SIGNED Supp Extension Time and Opposition to Motions to Dismiss page 55
886	20080714 Letter to Judge Scheindlin
887	20080717 Deny Default on Proskauer
888	20080718 FINAL SIGNED Opposition to Proskauer letter dated July 17 2008
889	20080718 Letter to Scheindlin Re Proskauer letter dated July 17 2008
890	20080718 ORDER RE PROSKAUER DEFAULT
891	20080801 Scheindlin Denies Lamont Sur Reply 1
892	20080808 Scheindlin Dismissal of Complaint no comments
893	20080808 Scheindlin Dismissal of Complaint
894	20080808 Scheindlin Dismissal of related complaints
895	20080812 New York Law Journal Re Scheindlin Dismissals
896	20080819 USDC SDNY Scheindlin Order on Reconsideration
897	20080828 Motion for Extension to File Appeal
898	20080830 Notice of Appeal & Extension of Time
899	20080909 NYAG PUBLIC INTEGRITY COMPLAINT
900	20080924 Appeal Information Response USDC SDNY
901	20081002 Index to the record on appeal 2
902	20081002 Index to the record on appeal
903	20081002 US Marshal Service of Eric Turner at the SBA
904	20081006 Acknowledgement of Appeal Lamont
905	20081006 Cahill Complaint First Department Reardon Response
906	20081006 Docketing Letter 2nd Circuit Lamont
907	20081016 Court of Appeals Clerk Switch
908	20081016 received 20081028 appeal notice
909	20081026 Notice of Appearance Appeal
910	20081027 USDOJ - FBI Letter re OIG letter
911	20081107 First Department Disciplinary Letter Lamont to Reardon Part 2
912	20081107 First Department Disciplinary Letter Lamont to Reardon
913	20081116 Lamont Appellant Brief
914	20081118 LAMONT JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MEETING -- Date, Time, Venue
915	20081118 Lamont Telephone Conversation Reardon
916	20081118 Lamont to Judiciary Committee
917	20081118 Lamont to Judiciary Committee 2
918	20081120 USDC Court of Appeal Extension letter
919	20081202 Proskauer Letter to Court to Merge Appeals
920	20081203 Virginia Bar Letter US Court of Appeals 2nd Circus
921	20081215 Lamont IVIEWIT AFFIDAVIT_v1
922	20081215 Lamont Witness List_12_15_2008 Submission_v3
923	20081217 VA AG Motion Information Statement
924	20081219 Admission of Virginia Bar Pro Hac to Court of Appeals
925	20081229 Lamont Update Gizella Weishauss SDNY Hearing
926	20081231 US Court of Appeals Docs
927	20090112 First Department Letter Response to Attorney Complaints
928	2009 Bradley Foundation Grebe Foley Donations
929	2009 Intel Correspondence List Exhibit SEC
930	2009 Madoff Stanford linkage
931	20090616 FINAL NYSD BK Proof of Claim Letter SGI BK
932	200901 Rolling Stones Bush Interview - Hysterical
933	20090109 Motion For Extension of Time to File an Appeal
934	20090114 Judge Jonathan Lippman Motion to First Department Court Thomas J. Cahill and Alan W. Friedberg - Lamont filed
935	20090127 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM FOR COURT OF APPEALS
936	20090127 Conflict of Interest Form
937	20090127 Final Extension of Time 2
938	20090127 First Department Letter Reardon Dismissing Complaint against Cahill and Friedberg - Lamont filed
939	20090128 Court of Appeals Exhibit 1
940	20090128 Final Extension of Time 2
941	20090128 Final Extension of Time 2
942	20090128 Lamont Letter to Senator John Sampson
943	20090128 Lamont Letter to Senator Malcolm Smith
944	20090129 Final Extension of Time 2 SIGNED low
945	20090130 Lamont Threat to Bernstein Notice No 2
946	20090130 Lamont Threat to Bernstein Notice No 2
947	20090202 Lamont Letter to Jonathan Lippman
948	20090205 Anderson Attorney Statement and list of depositions
949	20090206 US Court of Appeal Denial of Motion for Ext of Time
950	20090209 FINAL Iviewit Response to First Department Re Conflict Foley Proskauer attorneys SIGNED
951	20090209 Lamont Attempt to Quash Bernstein Motion
952	20090209 NYAG PUBLIC INTEGRITY COMPLAINT SIGNED
953	20090213 FINAL SIGNED LETTER OBAMA TO ENJOIN US ATTORNEY
954	20090216 Deborah Homes Temp Stay on Appeal and Date Correction
955	20090216 Edwin S Kneedler US Solicitor General
956	20090216 Second Circuit Request for Temp Stay on Appeal and Date Correction
957	20090217 Letter To Holmes Regarding Court Extension
958	20090217 NYAG Integrity Confirmation of First Dept Complaints
959	20090217 Second Circuit Holmes request for stay to file appeal and confirmation deliveries
960	20090218 Motion other than ext sent to panel to hear appeal ORDER
961	20090219 Lamont Opposition to Bernstein Motion Final
962	20090219 USCA Order and Scheduling Order 2
963	20090224 Virginia Bar Brief Reply
964	20090225 USDC Northern TX Filing RE SEC ALLEN STANFORD
965	20090227 FINAL SIGNED BRIEF USCA 2nd Circ 13988
966	20090227 Allen Stanford Amended Complaint
967	20090228 Receipts for Service of Brief
968	20090302 FINAL Emergency Motion Re Proskauer Stanford Madoff Dreier Scandals
969	20090303 Proskauer Notice of Appearance
970	20090306 Intel Demand Letter & Liability Exposure Signed
971	20090309 First Department Complaints Proskauer and Foley re Shira Scheindlin Case
972	20090313 FINAL BERNSTEIN BRIEF SIGNED REDO
973	20090316 USDC Texas Letter Re Trustee Withdraw SIGNED
974	20090318 Meltzer Brief Reply
975	20090325 FINAL Intel SEC Complaint SIGNED
976	20090325 Intel Correspondence Regarding SEC complaint
977	20090325 SEC FAX Cover Page
978	20090326 08-4873 Brief of The Florida Bar Appellees w notes
979	20090326 08-4873 Brief of The Florida Bar Appellees
980	20090326 Intel email letter
981	20090327 Brief for Defendant-Appellee Raymond A Joao
982	20090330 Docket No 08-4873-cv Brief for Foley Lardner Defendants-Appellees
983	20090330 NYAG Enlargement of Time Request to Court of Appeals
984	20090330 SEC confirmation of Intel complaint
985	200904 SGI Davis Polk App Employ SDNY Bankruptcy
986	20090402 Order Granting Appellees State Defendants Extension of Time
987	20090403 Final Demand Letter to SGI and Ramirez
988	20090406 Grebe Foley Shady Organization
989	20090406 Lamont Motion to Strike Joao sent to Panel
990	20090409 FINAL US Bankruptcy Court SDNY SGI Motion
991	20090410 Proof Of Claim SGI BK Filing
992	20090414 Bush Six Accused in Spain of WAR CRIMES
993	20090416 FINAL SIGNED Demand Letter to Lockheed Martin Chief Counsel James Comey
994	20090416 Michael Grebe DA investigation school scandal
995	20090417 Proskauer Ensnared in Tax Shelter Scams
996	20090419 UN says failure to Prosecute CIA torturers by Obama unacceptable and a war crime
997	20090427 07cv9599 Shira Scheindlin Decision to Move related Anderson case to trial
998	20090427 FINAL Lockheed SEC Complaint
999	20090429 08-4873-cv Brief for NY Defendants-Appellees
1000	20090429 Swedish Heiress Claims Proskauer Stole Art Guggenheim Lindholm
1001	20090430 USBK SDNY SGI Hearing
1002	20090507 Grebe Bradley Foundation federalist-society
1003	20090507 Motion Information Statement - Ext of Time to File Response to Appeal Rebuttal SIGNED
1004	20090512 Allen Stanford Laura Pendergest Holt Indicted Proskauer
1005	20090513 Order Approving Additional Time
1006	20090513 Proskauer Sjoblom Stanford re lying to SEC
1007	20090516 Skull Bones behind Great Depression and Great Depression 2
1008	20090521 Lamont Notice to Move Complaints against Cahill etc
1009	20090523 Dreier Partners in LA investigated
1010	20090524 Bilderbergs 2009 attendees
1011	20090525 Scarborough 911 Greenberg Traurig
1012	20090526 Motion Extension Kidney Stones Signed
1013	20090530 Foley Partner Lamb Hale takes counsel position at Department of Commerce
1014	20090602 Enron Broadband Exec Pleads Guilty
1015	20090602 Scheindlin Spitzer Prostitution Case
1016	20090603 Greenberg Traurig Investigation
1017	20090605 USCA Motion for Extension of Time Kidney Stones 2
1018	20090604 Judiciary Committee New York Speech Outline
1019	20090608 New York Judiciary Committee Hearing First Dept Witness List
1020	20090613 FINAL NYAG Steven Cohen Letter signed
1021	20090616 FINAL NYSD BK Proof of Claim and Letter SGI BK
1022	20090618 FINAL NYAG Steven Cohen Letter Re Lamont Signed
1023	Anderson v. New York -- Second Am Compl. (Filed Stamped)
1024	20080307 Scheindlin Order 03 07 2008 (2)
1025	Christine Anderson 07cv9599 12DEC07 Transcript
1026	Christine Anderson 07cv9599 Answer to Second Amended Complaint
1027	20071028 07cv9599 Anderson Original Filing
1028	20080111 Anderson Second Amended Complaint
1029	20081003 Anderson Motion for Summary Judgment
1030	20090205 Deposition of Sherry Cohen Partial
1031	20090205 Deposition of Thomas Cahill Partial
1032	2009025 Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe Deposition Partial
1033	20090427 07cv9599 Decision
1034	Anderson Presiding Judge Jonathan Lippman Affidavit
1035	Anderson New York Times DDC Article
1036	20080122 Capogrosso related case Original Filing (for a copy of this document please contact iviewit@iviewit.tv)
1037	Pamela Carvel related case Filing
1038	20080707 New York Law Journal re Pamela Carvel
1039	20090304 Marc S. Dreier Baritz Fraud Article Joao Meltzer
1040	20081228 Luisa Esposito related case Original Filing
1041	Esposito\Brief for Defendant- Appellee Harvey Gladstein & Partners LLC
1042	Esposito\Defendant Appellee Allen H. Isaac's Brief
1043	Expose Corrupt Court Articles
1044	Suzanne McCormick 08cv4438 related case complaint
1045	Kevin McKeown 08cv5914 related case
1046	20080307 Kevin McKeown
1047	20080428 McKeown OSC 08cv2391
1048	20080502 McKeown 08cv2391 OSC DENIED
1049	20080612 McKeown AG Trying to Stop Judges
1050	20081020 Martin Gold Letter From McKeown
1051	20080612 McKeown Order to submit Judge affirmations under seal
1052	20090127 senate-judiciary-hearing McKeown testimony
1053	20080520 McKeown Brady Letter Re Judges testifying 08cv2391 letter
1054	20090508 367 Bernstein Denial of Emergency Motion 2
1055	20090508 367 Bernstein Denial of Emergency Motion
1056	20090508 SGI BK Hearing Script into records
1057	20090508 Silicon Graphics Inc. Case No. 09-11701
1058	20090518 Proof of Claim and info
1059	Bernstein Objection SGI BK
1060	SGI Ramirez Declaration
1061	Allen Stanford SEC Court Docs
1062	20090619 Allen Stanford FBI Indictment
1063	20090619 FBI Arrests Stanford Proskauer
1064	20090305 Another Possible Stanford Murder
1065	20090328 Proskauer Sued by Stanford Holt Sjoblom
1066	20090409 Scheindlin IBM Ford Apartheid
1067	20090325 Proskauer Scheindlin FCPA case
1068	20090412 Shira Scheindlin IBM Apartheid case
1069	20090425 Stanford Receiver sues Florida Greenberg Traurig lawyer
1070	20080439 08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus related case
1071	20081229 Gizella Weisshaus Order to Show Cause
1072	20090519 Weisshaus 2 Sampson
1073	20020116 SGI transfers patents to MICROSOFT
1074	20070924 New York AG Cuomo letter denying Iviewit investigation
1075	20071008 Christine C. Anderson Original Filing related case 07civ9599
1076	20090622 US Court of Appeals Extension of Time Approval
1077	July 08, 2007 Exhibit List
1078	1900 03 10 to 2020 03 10 Patent Application Oath & Declaration filed by Joao. This application is a fraud and the fax headers on the page are part of the explanation. Both fax machines' dates were changed to look like 3/10/00 but instead come out as 3/10/1900 and 3/10/2020. This application also is entirely different than the application signed by Rosario, Bernstein and Shirajee.
1079	1999 01 15 Proskauer letter regarding Iviewit Corporation, a company that does not exist or perhaps it is another Proskauer owned entity involved in theft of the patents through a complex shell game with identically named and similarly named companies
1080	1999 01 28 Letter to Gortz asking why is Rubenstein not at Proskauer and instead at Meltzer when they told us he was at Proskauer.
1081	1999 02 17 - Interactive Week article where Intel engineers are quoted as stating the Internet at speeds under 1.5Mbps would be text based with banners, no video or imaging of quality at the lower bandwidths.
1082	1999 02 18 Wheeler letter regarding Proskauer and Rubenstein review of patents, that Rubenstein is patent expert reviewing the patents for patentability.
1083	1999 02 18 Wheeler letter regarding Rubenstein review of patents 2
1084	1999 02 22 Raymond Joao patent application before he says he knows Iviewit, Joao bills for patent in March stating he is working on application. Yet, the filing card shows it was sent in 2/99.
1085	1999 03 02 Rubenstein letter to Eliot regarding how to do patents. Rubenstein states in deposition that he does not know Bernstein or anything about the inventions.
1086	1999 04 16 Proskauer and Wheeler get info for fullscreen video invention. Wheeler in deposition states he did not know of video invention prior to Real3D meeting. This indicates he had seen the videos and retained cd's with the inventions on them.
1087	1999 04 16 - Wheeler gets CD with fullscreen videos and in his deposition he states that at this time he was unaware of fullscreen video inventions
1088	1999 04 26 NDA - Goldman Sachs - Jeffrey Friedstein & Donald Kane
1089	1999 04 26 Proskauer opinion letter for Hassan Miah and Earthlink investors Sky Dayton and Kevin O'Donnell. Wheeler sends the opinion to Richard Rosman, Esq. = Contradictory evidence Wheeler states in deposition that Proskauer never reviewed the Iviewit patents and never made any opinions
1090	1999 04 27 Rosman to Wheeler letter showing Hassan wants opinion of Proskauer's Rubenstein who he knows from MPEGLA, Wheeler sends a Proskauer opinion stating their retained counsel finds it to be novel and patentable. Wheeler lies under deposition and to Florida Bar stating he does not know anything about the technologies and never opined.
1091	1999 04 27 Rosman to Wheeler Hassan Rubenstein patent attorney
1092	1999 04 27 Rubenstein/Wheeler/Proskauer patent opinion
1093	1999 05 30 Miah letter asking to email Iviewit patent counsel Rubenstein some questions
1094	1999 06 01 HASSAN LETTER FORWARDED TO RUBENSTEIN
1095	1999 06 01 Donald G. Kane letter on structuring the companies
1096	1999 06 11 Wheeler notes regarding Intel/SGI/Lockheed/Real 3D disclosure meeting of video and imaging
1097	1999 06 18 Proskauer bill for Iviewit Corporation, a company that does not exist, we think
1098	1999 06 24 Lewin letter to Wheeler regarding his conflict of interests with Visual Data. Visual Data was an early violator of their NDA and when we found out we also found out that Lewin had undisclosed conflict.
1099	1999 06 30 - Gerald Stanley CEO of Real 3D (Intel/SGI and Lockheed) opinion and information forwarded to Huizenga
1100	1999 06 30 Real 3D Opinion and Licensing Info - We start to see evidence of companies we never heard of. Now there appears an Iviewit LLC and an Iviewit.com LLC.
1101	1999 07 23 Proskauer/Wheeler to Huizenga/Branden opinion on technology for Wayne Huizenga investment.
1102	1999 09 08 PR Wheeler to Lewin for Payment after Huizenga funding. Wheeler in deposition states payments were not based on fundings.
1103	1999 09 08 Proskauer Retainer Letter, comes over a year after engaging Iviewit?
1104	1999 09 20 Rubenstein Joao Utley Filipeck Meeting NY Proskauer/Rubenstein Office, yet Rubenstein denies even knowing us other than to refer Joao.
1105	1999 Utley resume given to Iviewit by Wheeler (his best friend) showing false statements about his past. He conceals former patent thefts from his past employer with Wheeler and Dick. Also, false academia credits.
1106	2000 03 09 Utley writes letter to Joao, after Joao is thought to be writing patents wrong and possibly in his name. Decision is made to replace Joao with Dick and Foley - Utley suddenly claims Joao patents have mistakes and major missing items. Good Guy - Bad Guy. Dick replaces Joao but instead of correcting Joao errors and wrong info and inventors they perpetuate the fraud.
1107	2000 05 11 Wachovia Letter from Foley stating false information regarding assignments and missing inventions. False statements for a Wachovia Private Placement by Foley.
1108	2000 05 25 Dr Christopher Taylor Consulting Agreement
1109	2000 06 06 Foley & Lardner request MLGWS/Joao files, stating that Joao has not transferred all patent applications and files, Joao does not send a US application and tries to replace with a PCT. Once caught he sends file 5865-10 which he replaces patent signed by Eliot, Jude and Zakirul with his initial provisional filing. This is the application with fax dates of 1900 and 2020 stamped on them.
1110	2000 07 22 - Proskauer Marketing Letter to Clients Regarding Iviewit Technologies
1111	2000 07 25 Dr Christopher Taylor Milwaukee Engineering Video study showing Iviewit invention for video plays better than true full-screen video, very cool.
1112	2000 07 31 Taped Meeting Foley & Lardner
1113	2000 08 02 taped foley meeting part 1
1114	2000 08 02 taped foley meeting part 2
1115	2000 08 04 Taped Meeting Foley & Lardner Part 1
1116	2000 08 09 Armstrong Foley Boehm letter regarding Foley patent error that were corrected but still filed wrong. This was beginning to discovery that something was afoul with Foley, we had no idea the extent at the time
1117	2000 08 09 Boehm Foley Letter to Iviewit Math Errors and Liability letter tries to diffuse blame on Eliot for Foley's errors
1118	2000 08 25 Wheeler sends to Rubenstein PATENT PORTFOLIO BINDERS, contradicts Rubenstein's entire deposition
1119	2000 08 29 Wachovia Securities Letter to chairman of the board regarding Due Diligence, Foley states Iviewit Holdings, Inc. is owner and assignee of all patents. Patent office information from OED Director Moatz contradicts this. Also in taped meetings held later Foley admits that not all patents are assigned. Foley materially misrepresents to Wachovia the status and fails to list a missing Joao application, securities fraud.
1120	2000 09 05 Intel/RYJO letter warning of using Iviewit technologies in violation of Intel NDA, RYJO tries to steal concepts and get intellectual property in his name.
1121	2000 09 08 Armstrong Where Are Assignments
1122	2000 09 09 Bernstein and Boehm letters regarding bad math filed and other issues. Foley busted here.
1123	2000 09 18 - 60 233 344 - Utley Zoom and Pan Camera Filing contradicts Utley deposition that he knows nothing about a camera patent application in his name, oops.
1124	2000 09 20 Hersh to Arthur Andersen, Erika Lewin accused of misleading auditors on corporate structure, it turns out to be entirely true.
1125	2000 09 IVIEWIT, INC. DEL PROSKAUER HAS CONFIDENTIALITY
1126	2000 10 09 Arthur Andersen letter requesting proof that Iviewit Holdings, Inc. is owned by shareholders, turns out several Iviewit Holdings, Inc. exist, unraveling a corporate shell game where the other Iviewit Holdings, Inc. are owned by Proskauer Rose.
1127	2000 11 27 Arthur Andersen termination of audit letter, terminates Iviewit after almost one year of audit, after accusing Erika Lewin of fraud
1128	2001 01 01 - Rubenstein bio in Wachovia PPM and as Iviewit PATENT COUNSEL & BOARD DIRECTOR contradicts his, Wheeler & Utley Depositions
1129	2001 01 01 Rubenstein listed in Wachovia Private Placement as patent counsel and board director, contradicts his entire deposition
1130	2001 01 01 Utley resume in Wachovia securities private placement memorandum containing materially false and misleading claims about his former employment where he was caught stealing patents with none other than Dick and Wheeler
1131	2001 01 01 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum - with bookmarks showing Rubenstein "iviewit patent counsel" and retained intellectual property counsel
1132	2001 01 01 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum Bookmarked
1133
1134	2001 01 17 Utley Lists Rubenstein as board director for SBA loan compliance documents and to Crossbow, this is contradicted in his deposition when he claims he never used Rubenstein as an advisor and Rubenstein had NOTHING to do with Iviewit, oops.
1135	2001 01 22 Rubenstein named as patent attorney in Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum
1136	2001 04 18 Utley writes letter to Board of Directors claiming that he checked with Rubenstein as an advisor to board. This contradicts Utley deposition statement that he never used Rubenstein as advisor, ouch.
1137	2001 04 21 - James Armstrong letter regarding Utley screwing up patents and company
1138	2001 06 07 Utley police report, Embezzlement and Theft of Proprietary Systems
1139	2001 06 25 - David Colter to Steve Case founder of AOLTW/WB Regarding Eliot Bernstein and the Thought Journal
1140	2001 07 12 Blakely Portfolio Showing Utley Patents, suddenly after Utley and Foley are caught with patents in wrong places, BSTZ is retained and Foley sends patent portfolios that contain all kinds of new patents with all kinds of screw ups.
1141	2001 07 13 Utley police report embezzlement & theft leads to Utley returning stolen proprietary computers. Later discovered that computers were taken to New Jersey company owned partially by investor Tiedemann Prolow. Violates officer and director responsibilities and Utley's non-compete
1142	2001 08 01 BSZT patent evaluation, showing Utley had patents in his own name that were not assigned or owned by company, completely contradicting Utley deposition statements. This is a majordomo f'up.
1143	2001 08 04 BSTZ Letter to Iviewit showing Utley on Patents
1144	2001 09 17 Jeffrey Friedstein Power of Attorney BSTZ
1145	2001 09 18 BSTZ request for Utley Power Of Attorney signed by Bernstein on Utley's behalf to remove him from applications he was found to be on. Evidence shows that patent filings were made with Utley in Japan by BSTZ after Utley was gone.
1146	2002 01 14 AOLTW/WB LETTER STATING THEY ARE USING IVIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES IN VIOLATION OF NDA
1147	2002 01 15 - AOLTW/WB LETTER STATING TECHNOLOGISTS CHECKED WITH RUBENSTEIN WHO OPINED FAVORABLY ON THE IVIEWIT PATENTS. THIS CONTRADICTS RUBENSTEIN, WHEELER AND UTLEY DEPOSITIONS ENTIRELY, THIS IS WHY RUBENSTEIN WALKED OUT HIS DEPOSITION AT HIS LAWSUIT, HE COULD NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATING TO WHY THIS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS EXISTED CONTRADICTING HIS STATEMENTS ENTIRELY. REMEMBER, RUBENSTEIN STATES HE KNOWS NOTHING AND PROSKAUER NEVER OPINED OR DID PATENT WORK. ooooops
1148	2002 01 15 AOLTW RUBENSTEIN OPINION
1149	2002 01 15 AOLTW RUBENSTEIN OPINION comments
1150	2002 03 19 - BSTZ Japanese Filing of Utley Patent After He Was Fired Over One Year, did not discover this until US Investigations led to research in Japan and this is when BSTZ was further found to be part of the conspiracy. This evidences that BSTZ portfolios had false and misleading information regarding these patents.
1151	2002 03 28 Anthony Frenden Statement Regarding Stolen Investors Money and Proprietary Equipment
1152	2002 04 22 Joao Article - Ninety Patents in his name, this article needs to be checked for accuracy in true publication.
1153	2002 04 23 Kasser to Eliot regarding Lewin fraud on financial documents submitted to lenders
1154	2002 08 22 Utley deposition states all patents are assigned to Iviewit and no patents in his name. Contradictory evidence = patents in his name and all patents not assigned - confirmed by USPTO and leading to patent suspensions by commissioner
1155	2002 08 22 Utley deposition states Rubenstein is not an advisor, nor has he ever used him - Contradicted by Utley sending patent documents to Rubenstein as an advisor to the Board and other evidence
1156	2002 08 23 Utley deposition - States Dick was attorney that wrote patents into Utley name at his former employer DTE which led to business closure due to the thefts. Wheeler/Proskauer set up the company where the stolen patents were transferred. Wheeler lies to bar and states he never did work for Utley then gets caught lying in deposition. All three of them failed to disclose the prior patent heist to anyone
1157	2002 08 23 Utley deposition on Diamond Turf patent dispute over stolen intellectual properties by Utley, Dick and Wheeler from Utley's former employer
1158	2002 08 23 Utley deposition statement stating Wheeler knew about Diamond Turf patent disputes. Wheeler while recommending Utley as President of Iviewit failed to disclose this little patent theft or that he was involved. Dick never discloses his involvement. This shows there intent through the concealment. Wheeler delivers Utley resume to the shareholders and completely fabricates Utley's past.
1159	2002 08 23 Utley deposition statement that Dick never filed the patents for DTE but Dick in his statement to the Virginia Bar states he filed the patents in Utley's name to a company Wheeler/Proskauer had set up, Premiere Connection.
1160	2002 08 23 Utley deposition statement that he knew nothing about a zoom and pan camera patent application. Contradictory evidence = Patent Application for Zoom and Pan on a Digital Camera filed in Utley's name without assignment to the company
1161	2002 08 23 Utley deposition statement that there were patent disputes at Diamond Turf which he failed to put in his resume led to the closure of his former employer. Where Dick, Wheeler and Utley were all involved shows a criminal enterprise of patent thieves
1162	2002 08 23 Utley deposition statement that Wheeler never represented him. Wheeler states that he did not to the Florida Bar and then in deposition states that he formed company for Utley. The reason they want to hide this company is that it is where the stolen patents from DTE went
1163	2002 08 23 Utley deposition states he did not graduate college, this contradicts his sworn statements in a Wachovia Private Placement that he said he did graduate college
1164	2002 09 20 Greenberg Truarig Proposal Patents
1165	2002 10 25 Rubenstein Statement to Labarga Proskauer
1166	2002 10 25 Rubenstein Statement to Labarga Proskauer 2
1167	2002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein Deposition with Exhibits CERT
1168	2002 11 20 Rubenstein Deposition Regarding unsure of Conflict Check
1169	2002 11 20 Rubenstein deposition states he does not have Iviewit patent docs - Contradictory Evidence Wheeler Sending Him Entire Patent Portfolio
1170	2003 01 11 Palm Beach Post Article Crossbow Sells Iviewit! Problem -- they do not own it to sell. Evidence shows that SBA loans were written down and then other securities were sold in violation of private securities law
1171	2003 01 11 Palm Beach Post Article Crossbow Sells Iviewit2
1172	2003 01 28 Counter Complaint Filed
1173	2003 01 31 Eliot Bernstein Deposition
1174	2003 02 25 Joao 9th district original complaint - somehow gets transferred to the wrong district for prosecution
1175	2003 02 26 Original Rubenstein Bar Action
1176	2003 02 26 Wheeler Bar Action
1177	2003 02 26 Wheeler Bar Action
1178	2003 03 20 Labarga order for rubenstein and wheeler to return to deposition to answer previously unanswered questions
1179	2003 04 07 - Wheeler PERJURED STATEMENT TO FLORIDA BAR RE UTLEY
1180	2003 04 07 - Wheeler PERJURED STATEMENT TO FLORIDA BAR RE UTLEY past relationship
1181	2003 04 07 - Wheeler Proskauer Response to Bar Complaint
1182	2003 04 07 - Wheeler Proskauer Response to Bar Complaint tendered by matthew triggs in violation of his public office with supreme court agency the florida bar
1183	2003 04 08 Joao response to NY Bar
1184	2003 04 11 - Rubenstein response authored by Proskauer attorney Steven C. Krane (Former New York State Bar Association President and former law clerk to Chief Judge of New York, Judith Kaye) in conflict of interest and abuse of public office. Sidebar -- Kaye is married to a Porksour partner!!!!!
1185	2003 04 16 NY Disciplinary Department with Joao Response
1186	2003 04 30 Bernstein response Florida Bar Wheeler BOOKMARKED
1187	2003 04 30 Bernstein response Florida Bar Wheeler BOOKMARKED
1188	2003 04 30 Bernstein response Florida Bar Wheeler BOOKMARKED 1
1189	2003 04 30 Lamont Response Florida Bar Wheeler BOOKMARKED
1190	2003 04 30 Lamont Response Florida Bar Wheeler BOOKMARKED
1191	2003 05 05 Florida Bar Receipt Filing
1192	2003 05 06 Proskauer Florida Bar Receipt Filing
1193	2003 05 23 Wheeler Admits Perjury and False Statements made to Florida Bar
1194	2003 05 23 Wheeler Admits Perjury and False Statements made to Florida Bar
1195	2003 05 23 Wheeler Response to Rebuttal
1196	2003 05 23 Wheeler Response to Rebuttal authored by Matthew Triggs in violation of his public office with supreme court agency the Florida Bar
1197	2003 05 23 Wheeler Response to Rebuttal Partial
1198	2003 05 26 Iviewit Rebuttal to Joao Response BOOKMARKED
1199	2003 06 03 Iviewit Rebuttal to Wheeler 2nd BOOKMARKED
1200	2003 06 03 Iviewit Rebuttal to Wheeler 2nd BOOKMARKED
1201	2003 06 03 Iviewit Rebuttal to Wheeler 2nd Response Final
1202	2003 06 04 Lorraine Christine Hoffman Cover letter
1203	2003 06 13 Rubenstein affidavit to his deposition, where he writes in his answers without precedence. Judge orders him to return to deposition and answer questions he refused the first time after walking out of his deposition. Remember this is his deposition in his firms law suit.
1204	2003 07 01 Florida Bar Hoffman Response Wheeler Complaint
1205	2003 07 01 The Florida Bar response on wheeler complaint
1206	2003 07 02 Iviewit rebuttal to Rubenstein response, this is quite lengthy as it is full of evidence of the crimes and evidence of false statements to both a civil court, the New York disciplinary department and the Florida Bar
1207	2003 07 16 Signed Letter of Understanding between Iviewit & Schiffrin & Barroway for two million dollars and full funding of all legal counsel in all legal actions. One must ask where are they and the story can be found in complaints filed at the Pennsylvania State Bar.
1208	2003 07 25 Selz letter regarding stand down orders in Labarga litigation because Schiffrin and Barroway operating under the signed LOU asked to replace him in the case.
1209	2003 07 28 Proskauer Draft Settlement that had so many flaws no one could sign it without repercussions of committing fraud against the Shareholders.
1210	2003 08 01 Labarga grants Selz motion to withdraw as counsel
1211	2003 08 01 Labarga grants Schiffrin and Barroway motion to withdraw as counsel, in a surprise move at a rehearing scheduling days before trial. This leaves Iviewit with no counsel on the eve of trial, two counsels re
1212	2003 08 13 Iviewit demand Schiffrin & Barroway for performance under signed and binding LOU
1213	2003 08 14 Wheeler Involvement In Florida Atlantic University Foundation Scandal & Fuzion Fraud. Utley and Wheeler controlled FAU foundation when scandal took place. Wheeler was reported taking tax deduction on his portion of contribution to Corvette
1214	2003 08 28 Boca Raton Police Written Statement - Stolen Cash from Iviewit including funds from Tiedemann/Prolow investment, Crossbow and SBA Loan
1215	2003 09 02 - Boca Raton Police Dept Written Statement - Stolen Intellectual Property
1216	2003 09 02 New York Bar Response Joao and Rubenstein
1217	2003 09 19 Motion for Mistrial labarga Version 4_Final
1218	2003 09 23 OED Written Statement Final 5_09232003_Corrected1
1219	2003 09 23 VIRGINIA BAR COMPLAINT WILLIAM DICK
1220	2003 09 26 - Iviewit Florida Bar Letter notice that civil case was over - Missing Doc
1221	2003 09 New York Bar Response Joao and Rubenstein
1222	2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Missing
1223	2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Not Signed Missing Exhibits
1224	2003 10 02 Iviewit letter to florida bar to re file wheeler complaint civil litigation complete
1225	2003 10 08 Virginia Bar Response Dick to initial Complaint
1226	2003 10 13 - Florida Bar Letter
1227	2003 10 13 florida bar letter again delaying wheeler complaint based on civil litigation
1228	2003 10 30 DOJ Antitrust Final Signed Digital EIB + PSL
1229	2003 10 30 Fax receipt for Dick Bar Complaint Response
1230	2003 11 09 AICPA Lewin Complaint
1231	2003 11 10 - Florida Bar Letter Response
1232	2003 11 10 Florida bar response
1233	2003 11 14 Lamont to BSTZ where is the IP docket
1234	2003 11 17 - Final Signed Judgment labarga litigation default for failure to retain replacement counsel
1235	2003 11 19 - Iviewit letter to turner regarding florida bar review
1236	2003 11 19 Iviewit Letter to Turner Regarding Review
1237	2003 11 20 - BSTZ Portfolio Showing Japanese Patents and Utley Patents
1238	2003 11 20 - Florida Bar Re-examination notice
1239	2003 11 20 florida bar letter regarding re-examination of wheeler complaint
1240	2003 11 22 - European Patent Office Filing Exposing Fraud on the EPO
1241	2003 11 23 - P010 Response Martyn Molyneaux EPO fraud filing
1242	2003 12 11 judicial qualification commission - brooke Kennerly Response Final EIB PSL signed
1243	2003_10_30_Virginia bar Response william dick - foley & lardner
1244	2004 01 06 Utley declaration for Dick's Virginia Bar Response = contradictory statements to his deposition regarding the filing of stolen patents from his former employer DTE
1245	2004 01 08 - Dick Statement to Virginia Bar Involvement with Utley at DTE and Patents Were Filed - Contradicts Utley Deposition
1246	2004 01 08 Dick Statement to Virginia Bar Shows that Premiere Connections Received Patents (This is the Company that Wheeler set up for Utley). Wheeler lies to bar that he never did work for Utley and then contradicts himself in deposition. This ties Utley, Wheeler and Dick together in former theft of patents from Utley's prior employer
1247	2004 01 09 - Response to New York Bar Rubenstein Joao
1248	2004 01 09 BSZT Letter Response to Coester Final
1249	2004 01 10 BSZT Letter Response to Coester Final
1250	2004 01 13 Antitrust Division Response
1251	2004 01 20 Florida Bar Response
1252	2004 01 20 florida bar response to not investigate wheeler and now opinions by florida bar in favor of proskauer with no investigation and inapposite rules regulating florida bar
1253	2004 01 21 - Virginia Bar Dick statement filed patents for Utley contradicts utley deposition statement stating patents were never filed
1254	2004 01 21 - Virginia Bar Dick statement filed patents for Utley contradicts utley deposition statement stating patents were never filed
1255	2004 01 21 - Virginia Bar William Dick Foley Lardner Response
1256	2004 01 25 iviewit response to florida bar regarding wheeler complaint
1257	2004 01 25 Response to Eric Turner Florida Bar
1258	2004 01 27 Wildman Martyn Molyneaux leaves firm
1259	2004 01 28 - Eric Turner Final
1260	2004 01 28 eric turner final
1261	2004 02 02 Eric Turner 2nd response To Complainant Florida Bar
1262	2004 02 02 Eric Turner Response To Elevate Complaint Florida Bar
1263	2004 02 04 - Eric Turner Response to 2004 02 02 letter
1264	2004 02 04 - Iviewit Response to Eric Turner 2004 02 02 letter
1265	2004 02 14 Eric Turner 3rd response Florida Bar
1266	2004 02 14 Eric Turner 3rd response Florida Bar
1267	2004 03 02 - Warner Crossbow Re Patent Problems
1268	2004 03 03 - 09 522 721 Filing with USPTO FAX COPY Crossbow Inventor Change
1269	2004 03 03 Crossbow Ventures CEO Warner signs statement to patent office that fraud was committed by the attorneys against the
1270	2004 03 04 - 09 522 721 Change of Inventorship Form ALL PATENTS CROSSBOW
1271	2004 03 05 Eric Turner Florida Bar Letter
1272	2004 03 05 Eric Turner Florida Bar Letter
1273	2004 03 12 William Dick Virginia Bar Complaint Response
1274	2004 03 16 - AICPA letter regarding lewin complaint
1275	2004 03 23 Patent Office Correspondence Utley Patents are not Companies
1276	2004 03 23 Patent Office Correspondence Utley Patents are not owned by company or inventors
1277	2004 03 25 Patent Portfolio BSZT based on weider call
1278	2004 03 29 Patent Commissioner Suspension of patents
1279	2004 03 30 CORPORATE INCORPORATION AND NAME CHANGES
1280	2004 04 21 Director Officer Advisory Board and Professionals
1281	2004 04 30 IVIEWIT AICPA LEWIN COMPLAINT
1282	2004 04 Shareholder Letter ~ Letter of Liability
1283	2004 05 01 Officer and Director Questions LEWIN
1284	2004 05 02 Minutes of Former Board and Officers Meeting
1285	2004 05 13 Officer and Director Questions - WHEELER FINAL
1286	2004 05 19 KRANE COMPLAINT AND STRIKE KRANE RESPONSE tendered in conflict on behalf of Rubenstein
1287	2004 05 19 Krane Complaint Signed Lamont Bernstein Cahill
1288	2004 05 19 NYBAR STRIKE RUBENSTEIN RESPONSE - COMPLAINT AGAINST KRANE
1289	2004 05 20 LETTER TO CAHILL TO STRIKE KRANE RESPONSE RUBENSTEIN
1290	2004 05 21 Eric Turner Florida Bar Response
1291	2004 05 21 Eric Turner Illiterate Florida Bar Response to florida supreme court petition
1292	2004 05 21 krane response to complaint suicide note
1293	2004 05 21 Officer and Director Questions - RUBENSTEIN
1294	2004 05 24 Eric Turner Letter to Put Everything in Writing
1295	2004 05 24 Turner Letter Regarding Putting Concerns In Writing
1296	2004 05 26 - Response to Krane letter 5 21 04
1297	2004 05 26 Krane Biography showing conflicting first department roles
1298	2004 05 26 Letter to first department Response to Krane 2004 05 21 letter
1299	2004 05 27 - Eric Turner Response to letter dated 2004 05 21
1300	2004 05 27 - Iviewit Letter to Eric Turner Response to letter dated 2004 05 21
1301	2004 06 01 - Eric Turner Letter Regarding Process for Elevating the Complaint
1302	2004 06 01 Turner Letter Explaining Elevation Process
1303	2004 06 02 - Eric Turner Response to Letter
1304	2004 06 02 - Eric Turner Response to letter
1305	2004 06 06 Triggs confirmation of Bar Grievance from Bar - microsoft media file
1306	2004 06 06 Triggs confirmation of Bar Grievance from Bar - Sound File Microsoft Media Player
1307	2004 06 17 Cahill Motion to move complaints krane rubenstein
1308	2004 06 23 - CURRAN TO GOLD REGARDING MOVING CAHILL COMPLAINT
1309	2004 06 23 cahill complaint fax to curran second send direct
1310	2004 06 23 cahill complaint fax to curran second send direct
1311	2004 06 24 Eric Turner EIB PSL Executed
1312	2004 06 24 Eric Turner EIB PSL Executed
1313	2004 06 25 - cahill to gold
1314	2004 06 25 - Curran Transfer of Cahill Complaint to Gold
1315	2004 06 25 Eric Turner Letter Regarding Complaint Review of Wheeler Complaint
1316	2004 06 25 Florida Bar Turner Letter Refusing to Prosecute Wheeler
1317	2004 06 29 - ORIGINAL Krane NY Complaint 2 - Sent to Curran
1318	2004 06 30 Eric Turner Florida Bar Complaint
1319	2004 06 30 Eric Turner Florida Bar Complaint
1320	2004 06 30 Florida Bar Kelly Overstreet Johnson - Accepts Letter Fails to Disclose Conflicts with Wheeler's Brother
1321	2004 06 30 Florida Bar Kelly overstreet johnson letter turner
1322	2004 06 30 Wheeler Biography Showing False Claims of bar positions
1323	2004 06 30 Wheeler Biography Showing False Claims of Title
1324	2004 07 01 debbie yarbrough supreme court florida fax cover
1325	2004 07 01 Eric Turner Complaint Against Eric Turner The Florida Bar
1326	2004 07 01 Eric Turner Complaint Receipt
1327	2004 07 01 eric turner fax cover complaint against turner florida bar
1328	2004 07 01 Florida Supreme Court Case SC04-1078
1329	2004 07 01 Florida Supreme Court Case SC04-1078 - Acknowledgement of New Case and Stricken Due to Petitioner Not A Member of The Florida Bar Representing A Corporation
1330	2004 07 01 Florida Supreme Court Fax Yarbrough Wheeler Turner
1331	2004 07 01 Florida Supreme Court Filing to Debbie Yarbrough Fax
1332	2004 07 01 Letter to Debbie Yarbrough Supreme Court Florida Regarding Florida Bar Half Truth on File Return Message
1333	2004 07 01 yarbrough supreme court florida message - Microsoft media file
1334	2004 07 01 Yarbrough Supreme Court Florida Message Boggs Misleads Yarbrough Stating Florida Bar Would Return File to Petitioner But Fails to State That The Florida Bar Would Destroy Their Work Product Necessary to Evaluate the Confirmed Conflicts for Prosecution - Windows Media File
1335	2004 07 02 Marvin regarding Turner Florida Bar
1336	2004 07 02 Marvin regarding Turner Florida Bar
1337	2004 07 06 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - Wheeler FINAL NOTARIZED
1338	2004 07 06 SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA - Wheeler FINAL re-filing per supreme court NOTARIZED
1339	2004 07 08 Cahill Motion Supreme court new york FINAL
1340	2004 07 08 RUBENSTEIN KRANE JOAO MOTION FINAL BOOKMARKED
1341	2004 07 09 Florida Bar Boggs Confirming Conflict of Triggs and Wheeler
1342	2004 07 09 Florida Bar Boggs letter confirms triggs conflict
1343	2004 07 12 cahill motion to move krane
1344	2004 07 12 Supreme Court Case Update
1345	2004 07 12 Supreme Court Case Update
1346	2004 07 13 Florida Bar Complaint Wheeler 2nd
1347	2004 07 13 Florida Bar Complaint Wheeler 2nd
1348	2004 07 15 - AIG D&O Policy Internal Affairs Letter
1349	2004 07 22 Boggs Receipt of Triggs Complaint
1350	2004 07 22 boggs receipt of triggs complaint
1351	2004 07 22 Johnson Receipt of Triggs Complaint
1352	2004 07 22 matthew TRIGGS BAR COMPLAINT never docketed
1353	2004 07 22 TRIGGS BAR COMPLAINT - PROSKAUER BOOKMARKED
1354	2004 07 23 Florida Supreme Court Ruling Company Cannot Be Represented Pro Se
1355	2004 07 23 STRICKEN - The Affirmed Amended Petition for: Injunctive Relief; Declaratory Relief; Begin Immediate Investigation of Complaint Against Christopher C. Wheeler; and Move Complaints to the Next Highest Level of Review, Void of Conflict of Interest and Appearance Of Impropriety
1356	2004 07 28 boggs letter response
1357	2004 07 28 Florida Supreme Court Case LAMONT SIGN SC04-1078 2
1358	2004 07 28 Florida Supreme Court Case LAMONT SIGN SC04-1078 2ND AMMENDMENT FINAL SIGNED EIB PSL CERT3
1359	2004 07 28 Florida Supreme Court SC04-1078 amended FILING
1360	2004 07 28 Florida Supreme Court SC041078 ORIGINAL FILING
1361	2004 07 28 Iviewit Response to Boggs Letter Confirming Triggs Conflict - Johnson CC'd Fails to Disclose Conflicts
1362	2004 07 28 Patent Commissioner Moatz Suspension ALL Patent Trademarks FINAL2
1363	2004 07 29 - Supreme Court of Florida The Style of the Case Has Been Changed From Iviewit Holdings, Inc. v. The Florida Bar to Eliot Bernstein, et. al versus The Florida Bar
1364	2004 07 29 Florida Supreme Court Ruling Change Style of Case
1365	2004 07 29 SUPREME COURT FLORIDA SCO4 1078 RULING FLORIDA BAR
1366	2004 07 29 SUPREME COURT FLORIDA SCO4 1078 RULING FLORIDA BAR halt destruction of files
1367	2004 07 29 Yarborough Supreme Court Florida - Florida Bar to Halt Destruction of File Message
1368	2004 07 29 yarborough supreme court florida order bar - microsoft media file
1369	2004 08 03 Florida Bar Turner Letter
1370	2004 08 03 Florida Bar Turner Letter Trying to Deny Triggs Complaint Filing
1371	2004 08 09 Japanese Investigation Letter
1372	2004 08 11 New York first department orders investigation Krane Rubenstein Joao
1373	2004 08 19 Letter to Goodman Virginia Bar William Dick notice of conflicts in new york and florida
1374	2004 08 25 Letter to Goodman Virginia Bar William Dick notice of conflicts of interest in new york and florida
1375	2004 09 07 Cahill Cover Letter Transfer 2nd Dept false
1376	2004 09 08 Sony Zoom TV using Iviewit technologies news clip
1377	2004 09 09 Krane New Biography Changed - krane covering up conflicts
1378	2004 09 11 NY FUND FILING EIB SIGNED
1379	2004 09 11 Supreme Court NY ruling Joao and Rubenstein CERT
1380	2004 09 21 Letter to Goodman Virginia Bar William Dick notice of conflicts in new york and florida
1381	2004 09 22 USPTO Suspension Notices
1382	2004 10 05 Supreme Court New York Second Dept Kearse Krane NO COMMENTS
1383	2004 10 05 Supreme Court NY Second Dept Kearse Krane Re
1384	2004 10 07 Supreme Court Florida Motion Final Cert Signed
1385	2004 10 07 Supreme Court Florida Motion Final Cert Signed
1386	2004 10 08 Florida Bar Message Confirming Triggs Dates of Service with The Florida Bar
1387	2004 10 08 Florida Supreme Court SC104 1078 motion supp cert
1388	2004 10 08 Florida Supreme Court SC104 1078 motion supp cert
1389	2004 10 08 matthew triggs conflict of interest confirmation florida bar
1390	2004 10 10 LETTER DAVID WHITE
1391	2004 10 11 SUPREME COURT FLORIDA SCO4 1078 RULING florida bar to RESPOND to petition
1392	2004 10 11 SUPREME COURT FLORIDA SCO4 1078 RULING RESPONSE DU
1393	2004 10 13 - SC104-1078 Update Docket cert
1394	2004 10 13 - SC104-1078 Update Docket cert
1395	2004 10 13 AIG D&O LETTER
1396	2004 10 15 Denial of Motion for protective custody - failure to invoke courts jurisdiction
1397	2004 10 15 Florida Supreme Court Denial of Motion for Declaratory Relief; Intervene in Third Party Investigations of the Boca Raton Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Securities and Exchange Commission with the Courts oversight to ensure due process and an emergency order for the Immediate Protective Custody of Eliot I. Bernstein, Candice M. Bernstein, Joshua EZ Bernstein, Jacob NA Bernstein, Daniel EAO Bernstein, P. Stephen Lamont & P. Stephen Lamont II - Failure to Invoke Court Jurisdiction
1398	2004 10 15 Florida Supreme Court Ruling on Motion for Protective custody
1399	2004 10 15 USPTO
1400	2004 10 18 Gold Curran Letter First Dept New York
1401	2004 10 18 Johnson Read on Service of Lamont Petition Fails to Disclose Conflict with Wheeler's Brother
1402	2004 10 18 Kelly Overstreet Johnson read receipt on Service of Florida Supreme Court petition. Johnson fails to disclose at this time or previously that she has conflict with Wheeler's brother as his direct report at small Florida firm Broad & Cassell
1403	2004 10 20 AIG POLICY 872-99-99 showing Utley fraud on application and a policy on a non-existent company.
1404	2004 10 20 AIG POLICY 872-99-99cert
1405	2004 10 22 Florida Bar Response to Petition to Supreme Court
1406	2004 10 22 Florida Bar Response to Petition to Supreme Court
1407	2004 10 22 Florida Bar Response to Supreme Court Turner
1408	2004 10 22 Florida Bar to Supreme Court eib comments
1409	2004 10 26 Kearse Krane Letter NY SUPREME COURT SECOND DEP…
1410	2004 10 26 St Paul Claim Letter Garcia & Stallone regarding joao
1411	2004 11 04 Department of Professional Regulation
1412	2004 11 04 Motion for Extension of Time To Respond
1413	2004 11 09 - New York 2nd Department Letter Kearse
1414	2004 11 10 - Supreme Court of Florida - Granted Extension of Time
1415	2004 11 15 SC 04-1078 IVIEWIT REBUTTAL TO FLORIDA BAR RESP(1)
1416	2004 11 15 SC 04-1078 IVIEWIT REBUTTAL TO FLORIDA BAR RESPONSE
1417	2004 11 15 SC 04-1078 IVIEWIT REBUTTAL TO FLORIDA BAR RESPONSE
1418	2004 11 15 SC 04-1078 IVIEWIT REBUTTAL TO FLORIDA BAR RESPONSE CERT
1419	2004 12 15 Wheeler Arrest Report DUI Felony Del Ray PD
1420	2004 12 20 Second Department Response DiGiovanna
1421	2005 01 10 DiGiovanna Krane NY SUPREME COURT SECOND DEPT CERT
1422	2005 01 12 - Petition For All Writs Jurisdiction is Hereby Denied and Allow The Florida Bar to Destroy Files
1423	2005 01 12 - Petitioners Motion for Judgment Non Prosequitur is Hereby Denied
1424	2005 01 12 Motion for Judgment Non Prosequitur Denied
1425	2005 01 12 Petition for All Writs Jurisdiction Denied Destroy Files
1426	2005 01 25 - Draft Florida Response to Ruling
1427	2005 01 26 SC04-1078 Motion for Rehearing Clarification and Certification
1428	2005 01 26 SC04-1078 Motion for Rehearing Clarification and certification
1429	2005 02 05 - Eric Turner of The Florida Bar Defending Wheeler for his Drunk Driving and Recklessly Labeling the DUI as a Misdemeanor. The DUI was a Felony Count as Injury was incurred and as noted in the Police Report. This Shows Unequivocally That Turner Will Go to Any Length to Protect Wheeler Using The Florida Bar to Achieve This End
1430	2005 02 05 wheeler dui story
1431	2005 02 14 09 630 939 US Patent - 2nd six month extension
1432	2005 02 15 Florida Bar Boggs Letter to Supreme Court
1433	2005 02 15 The Florida Bar Boggs Letter Regarding Motion for Clarification, Rehearing and Certification
1434	2005 02 23 Second Dept Clerk Pelzer Letter
1435	2005 03 01 MOTION TO PROCEED SC04-1078 final signed
1436	2005 03 05 Florida Court Docket Wheeler DUI submission
1437	2005 03 11 Pelzer regarding Kaye and Prudenti Conflict Cert
1438	2005 03 18 New York Supreme Second Dept Transfer to Appellate
1439	2005 04 09 New York Supreme Second Dept Pelzer Letter Krane comments
1440	2005 04 20 Response to Second Department Krane Rubenstein Fin
1441	2005 04 25 Florida Supreme Court Denial of Motion for Rehearing
1442	2005 04 25 Florida Supreme Court Denial of Motion for Rehearing clarification and certification
1443	2005 06 18 - Florida Supreme Court Case Docket SC04-1078
1444	872 99 99 aig d&o insurance policy face page
1445	anthony boggs florida bar kelly overstreet johnson taped message - requires media player
1446	Anthony Boggs Message Regarding Kelly Overstreet Johnson Cannot Accept Files - After it was discovered that she had conflicts of interest with Wheeler brother - Windows Media File
1447	ARTHUR ANDERSEN FILES
1448	Bankruptcy documentation of Intel/RYJO Utley Reale Hersh they file on companies they have no contracts with and get caught. At the time we did not know these were mirror companies of the shareholder companies with stolen patents. We thought they filed on the wrong companies and were idiots. It was not until the patent office told us that patents were in some of these companies that we learned that Proskauer had fraudulently set up corporations that mirrored companies and had second set of stolen patents going into them. This action was filed without company knowledge and the company found out from AOLTW/WB that this action existed.
1449	Depositions (Eliot Bernstein, Simon Bernstein, Kenneth Rubenstein, Christopher Wheeler, Gerald Lewin, William Kasser, Brian Utley) SEARCHABLE with hyperlink comments
1450	Ellen DeGeneres Video Netfomercial Regarding Iviewit
1451	Foley Lardner Patent Portfolio submitted to the Virginia Bar. When this was sent to Harry Moatz at the United States Patent Office it was found to contain false and misleading information regarding certain patent applications.
1452	Holy Grail Articles
1453	Kaye Article Proskauer In Firm
1454	krane bio 2
1455	Lewin Deposition Fingering Rubenstein
1456	Lewin Deposition on Memory page 666
1457	LEWIN video
1458	list of bar actions and others
1459	List of Patent Suspensions
1460	List of State Federal and other crimes
1461	nda violators
1462	News Crossbow Iviewit Investment 1500000
1463	News Crossbow Iviewit Investment 1500000
1464	Outline of Crimes
1465	Patent Pool Infringers
1466	Proskauer Client Infringers
1467	Proskauer Intellectual Property Billings Rubenstein
1468	Proskauer Rose v. Iviewit - Pleadings 1 2001 05 to 2002 08
1469	PROSKAUER RUBENSTEIN PATENT POOLS
1470	Proskauer v Iviewit CA 01 04671 AB
1471	Proskauer Wheeler Business Plan Bills
1472	Proskauer Wheeler Patent Copyright and related bills
1473	RICO CRIME CHARTS
1474	RYJO/INTEL claim Iviewit technologies as their own and seek intellectual properties on iviewit technology while under nda
1475	SHAREHOLDER STATEMENTS BOOKMARKED
1476	Shareholders
1477	Shareholders
1478	Stephen Selz, esq. message on Rubenstein and wheeler documents showing the opposite of their statements to courts and bars
1479	Summary of Damages
1480	USPTO CFR 37 CONSOLIDATED RULES
1481	USPTO USC Title 35 Patent Laws
1482	Utley Patent Dispute at DTE
1483	Utley stolen patent samples
1484	2005 02 03 Wheeler arrest report for Driving Under the Influence Felony with Injury charges
1485	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that Proskauer and Wheeler represented Utley in the past. They failed to disclose that this former work was for a company where stolen patents went at Utley's former employer. Contradictory evidence = Wheeler's statements under deposition and to the Florida Bar that conflict, constituting perjury. Also, Utley states in deposition that Wheeler never did work for him.
1486	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that Iviewit was a portal and that Proskauer was hired for portal services and not to patent the inventions. Contradictory evidence is overwhelming.
1487	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that no Proskauer conflict of interest check was done
1488	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition regarding no conflicts check
1489	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition stating Proskauer never opined on the technologies or had anything to do with patents. Contradictory evidence = Wheeler/Proskauer opinions for investors. Wachovia Private Placement showing Wheeler and Rubenstein on the Board of Directors and representing that they are retained patent counsel.
1490	2004 12 15 Wheeler drunk driving police report from Del Ray Beach PD, check out his wife's statement to the police that even despite her pining for him not to drive, he did not listen.
1491	Wheeler/Proskauer marketing letter with client list, show's that Wheeler, Rubenstein and Proskauer knew far more about the technology than they now claim
1492	2004 03 22 William Dick Virginia bar rebuttal response
1493	Stock Certs for Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
1494	Zakirul Shirajee testimony on Rubenstein Joao patent disclosure meetings at Wheeler's Proskauer office
1495	Zakirul Shirajee testimony
1496	Zakirul Shirajee testimony
1497	2002 11 21 Wheeler deposition does not know about video invention - Contradictory evidence shows that Wheeler was sent video invention disclosures and then later in his deposition he claims to have been at video disclosure meeting with Intel/Real3D engineers.
1498	1999 06 03 Joao Patent Filing with Blanked Out Date

[1] Family Mini-Van hours before it was to be picked up by the wife and kids, after a long and mysterious disappearance to have a battery replaced. The kids would have been in the back seat. Auto. The Boynton Beach Fire Investigator

finds accelerants and evidence that it was intentionally incinerated, the FBI is notified.

[3] A living journal of human thought dedicated to finding solutions to offset the damages we do to our children’s environment and lifeblood. A computer that must solve for the most complicated equation, extinction of our species, the X-Gene.

[5] The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

[7] In this letter to Billionaire Wayne Huizenga, I have a Freudian slip and actually call his technologies “our technologies”, oops. Letter to Huizenga on our technologies.

[9] Proskauer Legal Opinion to interested lawyers and investors. Oh yeah, Hassan is considered to be one the pioneers of multimedia for the internet, heralded for the Intel/CAA multimedia lab. Hassan called it the Holy Grail inventions of the

multimedia world in front of Wayne Huizenga Jr., Lewin, Si, Eliot, myself and Jim Armstrong. No one could believe it.

and a pool that is in violation of Antitrust laws. Currently under federal investigation.

Stay tuned for updates to the fun documents list.

[2] http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003 04 30 Bernstein response Florida Bar Wheeler BOOKMARKED 1.pdf

[39] Some Conspiracy Theorist have claimed that Pope Ratzinger, the former Hitler Youth and Nazi in the Reich, had infiltrated the Church to bring it down according to Hitler’s plan. Part of the theory claims that Ratzinger has created HOMOMANCHURIAN

candidates, using skilled Pedophiles to destroy young children’s minds and then use them to set up Church members, slowly controlling or ridding the Church of honest priests. Yet, in the 1980’s, as Ratzinger’s plans were in full motion,, the

Pedophilic Priests, NOT GAY PRIESTS but CRIMINAL PEDOPHILIC PRIESTS, major differences between the two, were exposed.

The Conspiracy Theorists claim that once his Jiggy was exposed, Ratzinger and his band of HOMOMANCHURIAN VICTIMS OF PEDOPHILIC PRIESTS came to America in full force to set up politicians and anyone else who planned to bring charges against the

Pedophile Nazis. Set up in gay sex with young boys’ traps. If you were a Congressman or Investigator, who was going to bring charges against the church, they slipped you a GHB, put you in a hotel with a one or a host of young boys and in the morning showed

you pictures of you with a few dicks in your mouth or up your ass. You get my drift, in the morning they had your vote. This is how Ratzinger kept the PEDOPHILIAC PRIESTS from prosecution in America. To make sure the lid was kept on the scandal within

the Church, Ratzinger, it is said, murdered John Paul II to make sure he had top down control.

One more point, after the War, Ratzinger’s home became an American HQ for the smuggling of Nazi’s into America, using Jewish Concentration Camp Victims identities, what better cover for Nazi’s than Jews, many of them infiltrating Jewish Communities with the intent

to one day destroy Judaism as Hitler intended, many now Rabbis.

From the Ratz’s watered down Wiki, I quote,

“Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth — as membership was required by law for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[7] — but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings.[8] His father was an enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Aktion T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[9] [some say Ratzinger got promoted in Hitler’s regime by turning in his cousin for extermination and this was his leg up in Nazism] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer.[8] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.”

and

“Sexual abuse in the Catholic Church

My Friends ~ My Homes Away From Home

My Birth Family

To Those Americans and Others Who Still Keep the Faith & Protect the Democracy.

Desecrations: Fuck You to all the Following!

Goldstein Lewin & Co. ~ Gerald R. Lewin, CPA and daughter Erika Lewin

Real 3D, Inc. – Intel, Silicon Graphics, Inc. & Lockheed Martin

The Florida Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of New York & Chief Judge Judith Kaye aka Ma Barker

Others Thinking of Becoming Involved

A Final FU to Anybody Who Does Not "Question Authority" and Just Follows Orders

Final FU to all of the Following Defendants, mainly Dirty Rotten Lawyers, cloaked as Politicians, Judges, Prosecutors and Regulators but just Criminals Violating the Laws they are Duty Bound to Uphold:

Chapter 15 - Siege on the United States Patent & Trademark Office: Invention Theft, The Second Oldest Profession

Chapter 16 - Siege on the United States

Chapter 24 - Was Dan Brown Right in the DaVinci Code? Did Jesus Come to Give the Church to Woman and Man Stole it Through Force. Caesar Flavius Valerius Aurelius Constantinus Augustus aka Constantine I, was an Asshole, Inventions to Help you See the Truth and Change the World.

Chapter 28 - My Time has Come, the Meaning of the Fucking Ringing in Me’s Head

TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT

WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT which other cases have been marked legally “related” to by Fed. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin

· 14. 08 cv 6368 John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York, and,

Judge Winter’s Denial of Stay to join u.s. government officials ACTS AS title 18 obstruction

Relation of DEFENDANTS to Ponzi Schemes OF MADOFF, Stanford, dreier, okun & the markit group holding antitrust INVESTIGATION

Former IP Counsel to Plaintiff Greenberg Traurig Conflict Representing Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court

Violations of Judicial Cannons, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law

Judicial Canon 1. A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes citing New York Attorney Conduct Codes[99]