Proskauer Rose LLP - Kenneth Rubenstein, MPEG LA - Judge Jorge Labarga - Iviewt Theft - Proskauer Rose Perjury - Proskauer Rose Law Firm.

Proskauer Rose Attorney - Proof of Corruption and Coverups in Iviewit Stolen Technology

2962003 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.
2972003 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.

304
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.

305
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.
300
2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.

301
2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.
Source of Proskauer Rose - iViewit Post
http://www.deniedpatent.com/search/label/Proskauer%20Rose%20LLP

Top Judge Sets Liberal Course for New York - Jonathan Lippman - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose LLP - Iviewit Technologies - Connections and Affiliations

"" Gov. David A. Paterson nominated Jonathan Lippman to head the New York Court of Appeals in January 2009, making him the chief judge of the state.

The choice was a gamble: The judge, a longtime court administrator, did not have a long history of deciding cases, and there was almost no record of his political views.

Judge Jonathan Lippman has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

Now, a year in, the parameters of the Lippman court are coming into focus. He has helped turn the Court of Appeals into a scrappier, more divided and more liberal panel, its rulings and court statistics show.

To get the rulings he wants, the decisions show, the new chief judge has built alliances case by case with each of the four judges who were nominated by the last Republican governor, George E. Pataki, cracking the conservative majority.

The changes to the culture of the court, New York’s highest — which has sometimes been one of the most influential state courts in the country — are especially striking when Chief Judge Lippman’s approach is compared with the judicial style of his predecessor, Judith S. Kaye. She had prized unanimity.

In the past year, the court has issued a series of sharply divided decisions that have been surprising from a judicial body with a clear 4-to-3 conservative majority. They have included decisions favoring criminal defendants and injured workers, expanding environmental challenges and extolling individual rights against the police.

“The message he is sending is he doesn’t mind fighting for a much more progressive direction at the court,” Vincent M. Bonventre, a professor at Albany Law School who studies the court, said of Judge Lippman.

Though fiscal and political problems have plagued Mr. Paterson, a Democrat, Judge Lippman’s nomination may be one of his most enduring accomplishments in shaping policy. Judge Lippman, 64, does not reach mandatory retirement age until 2015.

Noting that the Supreme Court had yet to rule on questions presented by Global Positioning Systems, for example, the Court of Appeals ruled 4 to 3 that the State Constitution barred the police from placing GPS tracking devices on cars without a warrant.

A different Republican judge joined the three Democratic appointees in another divided ruling, this one striking down a youth curfew in Rochester as unconstitutional, though other courts around the country have approved such laws.

The Lippman court has also shifted ground on worker injury suits, saying that in the past the court too rigidly limited some of them. It has also signaled a new interest in arguments from criminal defendants, sharply increasing, at Judge Lippman’s urging, the number of appeals it is considering.

In an interview, Judge Lippman acknowledged that he had a different approach from that of Judge Kaye, a longtime collaborator in running the courts.

She was also nominated by a Democrat, former Gov. Mario M. Cuomo, but during her nearly 16 years as chief judge, she often worked for unified rulings.

“I am a result-oriented person,” Judge Lippman said, “and the result I am looking for is not necessarily unanimity.”

According to the court, unanimous rulings declined from about 82 percent during 2008, Judge Kaye’s final year, to 69 percent in Judge Lippman’s first year.

During Judge Kaye’s tenure, the court became more conservative partly because of the arrival of the four Pataki judges. Professor Bonventre, the Albany Law School expert, said that divided decisions became more common in Judge Kaye’s final years but that dissents increased further after Judge Lippman arrived.

The rulings indicate that on occasion, Judge Lippman has tailored his arguments to attract one of the four Pataki judges.

In a decision he wrote in September, the court waded into politics by overruling two lower courts that had said Mr. Paterson’s appointment of Richard Ravitch as lieutenant governor was unlawful.

That view, Judge Lippman wrote, would “frustrate the work of the executive branch.”

It was an argument that seemed crafted to appeal to Judge Susan P. Read, a staunch conservative but a former top legal adviser to Governor Pataki, who was not shy about exerting executive authority. It was a party-line vote, except that Judge Read broke with the other Pataki appointees.

In the environmental case, Judge Lippman and the other two Democratic appointees aligned with two of the Republican-appointed judges, Victoria A. Graffeo, a onetime Republican legislative lawyer, and Robert S. Smith, who had sometimes expressed libertarian views.

The decision, written by Judge Smith, appeared to involve tradeoffs.

It tartly noted that the suit sought to kill a proposed hotel to protect obscure species, the Eastern spadefoot toad and the worm snake.

The hotel got a green light. But in the process, the case gave environmentalists one of their most important court victories in New York in nearly 20 years. The majority said a 1991 ruling of the court had been too narrowly applied to limit those who could bring such suits to immediate neighbors.

Stephen F. Downs, the lawyer for Save the Pine Bush, the Albany group that brought the suit, said someone on the bench seemed to be paying for an environmental victory with a defeat for the spadefoot toad. “My impression,” Mr. Downs said, “was there was a certain amount of horse trading that went on.”

That would be vintage Lippman, people who know him say. He was a get-things-done administrator, said a retired judge, Betty Weinberg Ellerin, who has known him throughout his 38-year legal career. ""

Source of Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/18/nyregion/18lippman.html

New York Court Corruption, Affiliations and Conflicts of Interest. Time for Accountability in the New York Courts. Time Whistleblowers were heard and time Proskauer Rose to be accountable for their actions. The Iviewit Stolen Patent Case has many players, however Proskauer Rose is the Patent Attorney that STOLE the Trillion Dollar Patent and Judge Judith Kaye and Her Connections to Proskauer Rose through her Husband.. Stephen Kaye made a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft such as the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit Technologies Stolen Patent, seem like a Simple "Standard of Practice"...

Pay Attention Folks as more Unfolds on the Connections, Cronism and Conflicts of Interest of Proskauer Rose LLP - Ex-Judge Judith Kaye, Andrew Cuomo ( whose Father Appointed Judith Kaye) and how this all relates to court corruption in New York...

posted here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent atwww.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV

What Does Head Guy at Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Joseph Leccese have to say about Raymond Joao and connections to Proskauer Rose over the Iviewit Scandal ?

Raymond Anthony Joao – Misrepresented Proskauer Partner and Convicted Felon Marc Dreier Partner

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.

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.

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.

2004 07 28 Cahill to move Krane.

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.

2003 05 26 Iviewit Rebuttal to Raymond Joao attorney misconduct complaint. 1753 Pages BOOKMARKED

2003 04 16 Supreme Court of New York First Department Disciplinary Committee regarding reply to Raymond Joao complaint.

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.

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.

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.

Raymond Anthony Joao

Warner Bros. Signed Non Disclosure Agreements with Iviewit, Warner Violated those Agreements. Warner Signed License and Service Agreements..

Is the SEC Listening, LOOKING... do they even Care.. or will Mary Schapiro and the SEC just sit and wait for a Multi-Billion to Trillion Dollar Scandal and they say Whoops.. We had NO WAY to Know.. and then Of Course Investigative Blogger, Crystal L. Cox will have to Say What a Crock That is - Because does ANYONE at the SEC know How To work GOOGLE... ??? or any Search Engine Really.. or Possibly READ Complaints... ???

Warner Bros. - has broke the Law and in the process put shareholders at HUGE risk, why is Jeffrey Bewkes ignoring this blatant proof of Fraud.

Warner Bros signed multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements and Warner Bros. Signed License and Service Agreements with the Iviewit Company. 9 years have passed and Warner Bros. Blatantly and Illegally Violated those agreements long ago, why?

And Now Eliot Bernstein Founder and one of the Inventors it the Iviewit Stolen Patent has filed a very informative, incredibly detailed SEC Complaint. One that for Now Mary Schapiro and the SEC seems to be ignoring... I am not sure why just yet.. but hope to get tips on this soon...

Some of the Warner Bros' Iviewit Timeline and more details

of the Warner Bros. Relationship with the Iviewit Company.

" " TIMELINE OF WARNER BROS ET AL. RELATIONSHIP WITH IVIEWIT

The following Timelines are presented to give a factual timeline to the allegations herein, the exhibits are linked online and all Uniform Resource Locators (“URL”) and Exhibited Links throughout this document are hereby incorporated, in entirety by reference herein, including over 1000 evidentiary links on the homepage at www.iviewit.tv with exhibits that contain thousands of pages of factual evidence[5].

The timeline will also reveal facts regarding the relationships between many of the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and Warner Bros et al., including relations to the main perpetrator of the alleged crimes, the law firm Proskauer Rose.

*Note Warner Bros et al. relevant mergers, acquisitions and breakups to these matters in the timeline below are in bold italics.

1998-2002

Relevant Communications Between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al.

· 1998-2001

Inventions in Imaging and Video Discovered and Intellectual Property Filings begin in 1998. Proskauer Rose was retained Intellectual Property counsel for Iviewit for filing of Intellectual Properties.

· 2000-2002

Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.

Non-Disclosure Agreements @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf

Pages 1-5, 10, 61-62, 80, 108-109, 234

· November 02, 2000 ~ Letter to GS regarding Warner Bros. Technological Calls to Iviewit Investors by Warner Bros. employees, describing the efficacy of the Inventions and the results of the review by Warner Bros., including the anticipated uses by Warner Bros et al.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20001101%20Goldman%20Friedstein%20Letter%20from%20Buchsbaum%20re%20AOLTW%20Colter%20meetings.pdf

· January 11, 2001 ~ America Online and Time Warner Complete Merger to Create AOL Time Warner

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668364,00.html

· February 08, 2001 ~ Letter from David J. Colter (“Colter”) ~ Vice President Technology - Technological Operations Warner Bros. to Founder of AOL, Ted Leonsis (“Leonsis”), regarding the efficacy of the Iviewit technologies.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010208%20Colter%20to%20Leonsis%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL.pdf

· February 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - Signed Warner Bros. License And Service Agreement @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf

August 15, 2001 Irell & Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Paul%20Allen/old%20patent/LEGAL/Irell%20&%20Manella/Bills/2001%2008%2029%20-%20Irell%20Bill.pdf

It is imperative for the SEC to note that after the Signed Licensing and Service Agreement, Iviewit opened a California Office inside a Warner Bros. building, in order to take over encoding operations for their online content, and more.

Iviewit began billing according to the Licensing and Service agreement. Please note the language in the Licensing and Service agreement pertaining to the Proprietary nature and Confidentiality of the Iviewit inventions.

Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein ’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees.

Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office[6]. At this point, allegedly, a coordinated conspiratorial effort between Smith, Rubenstein and others began to derail the already signed Iviewit agreements with Warner Bros et al.

Allegedly, former “Acting CEO” of Iviewit, P. Stephen Lamont, (a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement. Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the Signed and Binding agreement is wholly denied.

The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, it may still be considered effective. Yet, it would difficult to cancel what one tries to deny the existence of and perhaps the reason no cancellation was formally completed.

o The emails forward from this point in the timeline begin to attempt to hide from the fact that Licensing and Service Agreements were already in place while also hiding these facts and liabilities from Shareholders and Auditors.

The alleged fraud may again have catastrophic effect on these highly traded stocks, reaching back to this point in time and possibly further back.

· April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. "Bill" Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL. AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010404%20Colter%20to%20Raduchel%20Leonsis%20referral%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

· May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Chey, formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony (also under Signed Agreements) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor.

Since that time, Warner Bros et al. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010525%20Sony%20Doug%20Chey%20Endorsement%20of%20Tech%20and%20Advisory%20Board%20Option%20letter.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100120%20Douglas%20Chey%20Sony%20Bio.pdf

The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION of Sony’s involvement in these matters. Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors.

I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony.

The SEC and all other investigators and committees addressed herein, can take this Formal Complaint additionally as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY. ""

Source of Post and of Warner Bros SEC Complaint

So Where is Mary Schapiro on this One ?

jeffrey bewkes

MPEG LA, LLC - Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Proskauer Rose Attorney - MPEG LA Stole iViewit Technology and Illegally Patent Pooled the Technology.

Kenneth Rubenstein to this day, covers up the FACT that he helped MPEG LA get control of the Iviewit Technology and illegally put this Patent into patent pools.

Kenneth Rubenstein is So Far above the LAW as protected by Judicial Corruption in New York. Kenneth Rubenstein was long since protected by Corrupt Supreme Court Judge Judith Kaye who protected her then husband Stephen Kaye, Proskauer Rose Partner.

Here are Some Documents on Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose.

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.

1999 01 15 Proskauer letter regarding Iviewit Corporation a company that disappears although bills are generated through it.

Kenneth Rubenstein Starts Patent Pool

Kenneth Rubenstein - Above the Law Click Here

Proskauer Rose Connections - Crime Chart - Click Here

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.

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

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.

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.

1999 02 18 Christopher Wheeler letter regarding Proskauer and Kenneth Rubenstein review of patents. Rubenstein is patent expert reviewing the patents for patentability.

1999 02 18 Christopher Wheeler of Proskauer letter regarding Kenneth Rubenstein review of patents.

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.

Posted here by
Investigative Blogger

Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Open Letter to Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Board of Directors and Time Warner Shareholders

Time Warner, Warner Bros., and AOL Executives have Been Hiding Massive Shareholder fraud for Over A Decade.

There are Signed Agreements, Contracts, and Tons of Proof that Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL did NOT honor agreements with the iViewit Inventors, yet went ahead and Used the iViewit Technology and made Billions for over a Decade.

Time Warner Inc., Warner Bros., AOL is involved in a Stolen Technology Scandal over the IViewit Technologies, and Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL has been covering it up. Then General Counsel Curtis Lu also covered up this Massive Proven Fraud. This is FACT, there are Links in this Letter to Prove it, they and YOU cannot Say that you did not know.

The Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Executives - General Counsels and many who worked at Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL over the last decade KNOW of the agreements they had with the iViewit Technology Inventors yet they have NOT disclosed to the Shareholder, Board of Director or investors of Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL. This was BEFORE AOL left Time Warner - the AOL Investors, Shareholders are Still Liable.

Click Below for Warner Bros. Signed Agreements with iViewit Inventors
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf


Warner Bros. Even Signed and Violated Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf

There has been an SEC Complaint Naming Time Warner,
Warner Bros., and AOL ... Click Below to See that Complaint.

https://docs.google.com/View?id=dgvpzjzw_9ghxg4km9

Goldman Sachs Group - Jeff Friedstein Letter
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20001101%20Goldman%20
Friedstein%20Letter%20from%20Buchsbaum%20re%20
AOLTW%20Colter%20meetings.pdf

These Are SOLID, Legally Signed Contracts, Signed Licensing Agreements that were Never Honored, and Time Warner, Warner Bros., and AOL is Liable for every MINUTE of Video in Over 10 Years whereby they used the STOLEN iViewit Technology.

Those invested in Time Warner, Warner Bros., or AOL will pay for what the Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Executives KNOW and have NOT told You.

Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Executives have Known for Over a Decade. They want YOU to pay for their Decade Old Mistake.

For over a Decade the Corruption in Courts, Law Firms and in Government Agencies have Covered for Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Executives.

NOW it is time to pay the Iviewit Technology Inventors for their Invention USED by Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL for Over a Decade. Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOLmade Billions a year off of the Stolen Iviewit Technology.

It will be the Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Shareholders and Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Board of Directors that pays for the Crimes and Cover Ups of theTime Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Executives.

This Open Letter Will Go to ALL Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Board of Directors, Shareholders, Insurance Carriers and ALL Government Agencies Involved to serve as YET another Warning of what will happen to Time Warner, Warner Bros., and AOLShareholders. Just as in the Madoff Scandal, they CANNOT Say they Did Not Know. There is a Whole lot of Fact, Proof that they Did Know and DO Know RIGHT NOW.

Please Forward this Letter to ALL Time Warner, Warner Bros., and AOL Investors, Shareholders, Directors, Executives that You Know of. This is a VERY Big Deal Financially. It is NOT a Hoax, Look at the Fact yourself and Warn Others.

The Stolen Iviewit Technology will Cost Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Investors, Shareholders Billions. CEO Jeff Bewkes of Time Warner Inc. KNOWS of this Massive Shareholder and is NOT Disclosing to Time Warner, Warner Bros., AOL Board of Directors, Shareholders or Insurance Carriers.

It is Your Money, You Have a Right to Know that Billions will be Paid By Time Warner Inc., Warner Bros., and AOL. in the Iviewit Technology Theft. It is not a Matter of IF, the Proof is ALL there. It is a Matter of When.

More Links to the involvement of Time Warner, Warner Bros. and AOL. in the iViewit Stolen Technology and the Liability Involved to Shareholders.

Proof of Warner Bros. Douglas Chey's Involvement with iViewit

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010525%20Sony%20Doug%20Chey%20
Endorsement%20of%20Tech%20and%20Advisory%20Board%20Option%20letter.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100120%20Douglas%20Chey%20Sony%20Bio.pdf

More on the Liability to Time Warner Inc., Warner Bros., and AOL Shareholders

http://www.antitrustviolations.com/2010/10/massive-liabilities-exist-for-warner.html

Private Placement Memorandum

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Wachovia%20Private%20Placement%20Memorandum%20Bookmarked.pdf

Stephen Lamont - John Calkins Email Feb. 2002

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20020208%20Lamont%20to%20Calkins%20Warner%20Bros%20Re%20Colter%20and%20Thagard%20Advisory%20Board%20Stock.pdf

There are Links on the Post Link Below that Suggest AOL Split from TIME Warner Because of the Liability of the STOLEN iViewit Technology.

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/2010/02/warner-bros-signed-non-disclosure.html

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Intel Shareholder Fraud over iViewit Technologies Still Undisclosed by Intel CEO Paul Otellini

"iViewit Technologis SEC COMPLAINT against INTEL CORPORATION

White Collar Crime Division and Any and All Compliance Division Heads and Related
Offices:

I, Eliot Bernstein, of .....
Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33434 as the
Original Owner and Inventor of key "backbone technologies" for video and imaging as
further described herein, am filing this Formal Complaint against Intel Corporation ( Intel ) with United States headquarters located at 2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, Ca,
95054-1459, and bring to your attention ongoing investigations involving multiple
federal offices around the country as well as International investigations pertinent in this
matter.

Intel is a primary wrongdoer as a named defendant in a presently Pending Trillion
Dollar international RICO Conspiracy Lawsuit involving the theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property rights as further set out herein.

In addition to liabilities claimed in this lawsuit, are separate direct primary liabilities and obligations from signed agreements including Non Disclosure’s, Strategic Partner Agreements and Licensing Agreements.

Further, on information and belief Intel corporate management including at least the
President, Paul S. Otellini and corporate counsel Bruce D. Sewell, and Stephen R.
Rodgers are also involved in an ongoing and undisclosed massive international Fraud
against the Intel shareholders and investors.

Upon information and belief, the frauds include but are not limited to the failure
to disclose both the lawsuit and the Intellectual Property Infringements in direct violation
of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for
disclosing liabilities and more.

Merely one claim in this lawsuit involves the attempted Murder upon my family by an Iraqi style car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to mine during the early phases of the high stakes corporate theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property Rights.

Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to this as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower Case

In summary, dating back to 1998-1999 at the time the inventions were discovered,

I had Signed Non Disclosure Agreements, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing

Arrangements, including Agreements that were at the time in legal review for R3D

relating to the USE of my Proprietary Rights in inventions which were hailed as the "Holy

Grail" of the internet.

The technologies were deemed the “Holy Grail” by multiple experts under signed NDA’s as it permitted full screen full frame rate video previously thought impossible and zoom and pan imaging technologies which removed pixel distortion.

The stolen technologies are now commonly found on virtually all digital imaging and video hardware and software.

These Signed Agreements were amongst hundreds of signed agreements with many Fortune 1000 Companies.

After signing Agreements with Real 3D, Inc. ( R3D ), a company whose ownership was composed of Lockheed Martin ( 70% ), Intel ( 20% ) and Silicon Graphics Inc. ( 10% ), Intel later took over complete ownership of R3D of Orlando Florida.

In the subsequent months thereafter, a series of critical events occurred including

but not limited to the discovery of fraudulent patent applications and the discovery of

fraudulent corporations, the corporate frauds were discovered by Arthur Andersen during

an audit for the largest investor in the companies Crossbow Ventures of W. Palm Beach

Florida.

Nearly two-thirds of the Crossbow funds were secured through SBIC Loans from

the Small Business Administration making the SBA the largest investor in the

technologies and companies.

On information and belief, the SBA Inspector General’s office is conducting an ongoing investigation into these and other matters please refer to the SBA Inspector General’s office to obtain relevant information.

As you will see by the letter and petition to the 44

the US President, Barack Hussein Obama II, found @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/

20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTOR

NEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

and also sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder, I was then directed by Harry I. Moatz,

Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office of Enrollment and

Discipline to file charges with the Commissioner of Patents claiming Fraud Upon the

USPTO, my companies and myself.

This led to the Suspension of certain Intellectual Properties while investigations remain ongoing; please refer to Moatz and the Commissioner of Patents office to obtain relevant information.

In addition, Moatz directed me to seek Congressional Legislation to obtain an Act of Congress to correct the falsified Oaths on my Intellectual Properties submitted by my former legal counsel at the law firms of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Schlissel, Foley & Lardner and Proskauer Rose.

An Act of Congress is necessary to make the changes in inventors, owners and assignees

that are fraudulent, for which we have sought aid from The Honorable Senator Dianne

Feinstein who remains working through her offices regarding such.

These backbone technologies which were stolen in 1998-1999 have since been

used throughout the United States and across the globe throughout the entire value chain

of content creation and distribution of video and images for both software and hardware

in the transmission of Digital Video and Imaging across ALL Spectrums, including, the

Internet, Television, DVD, HD DVD, Micro Processing Chips, as well as, a mass of

applications for Defense, Flight & Space Simulation, including on the Hubble Space

Telescope (providing a deeper view into time) and on virtually all Medical Imaging

Devices, and more.

In fact, members of R3D and Intel were some of the earliest champions of the value of the technologies claiming they were “Priceless” and were valued in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over the life of the Intellectual Properties, having transformed the world of Digital Imaging and Video that now are considered part of daily life.

Intel was one of the earliest players in this scheme and has continued to not only

defraud myself and the other rightful owners of the technologies, including Ellen

DeGeneres and Alanis Morissette, but has simultaneously defrauded the Intel's

shareholders and investors for years by failing to report and disclose the liabilities with

full knowledge of their Binding Obligations regarding the technologies.

These frauds and failures by the Intel management team have continued despite multiple communications over several years that have gone directly to the President of Intel, Mr. Paul S. Otellini and their Corporate Counsel Mr. Bruce D. Sewell and Steven R. Rodgers and continue despite the knowledge of the signed Agreements.

At this time, however, as noted in my Feb. 2009 letter to the Office of the US

President Barack Hussein Obama II and the US Attorney General Eric Holder, I wish to

bring to your direct attention the identities of several federal offices already involved in

this ongoing national and international Intellectual Properties theft and fraud.

Investigations that will aid and facilitate the SEC with background information for the

proper performance of complete investigations by the SEC allowing for information

sharing with these agencies, some of the key offices are as follows:

1. Glenn A. Fine, Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Justice

2. Harry Moatz, Director, OED of the USPTO

3. H. Marshall Jarrett, Office of Professional Responsibility of the FBI

4. A complete list of Federal, State & International Actions can be found @

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm. ..."

Source of Post and Full Document on Intel Corp. Stealing
the iViewit Digital Video and Imaging Patent Pending Technologies.

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


Posted here by

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox

Crystal@CrystalCox.com