Eugene Volokh, Mayer Brown and Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC file a Motion for a New Trial in Obsidian V. Cox, Free Speech Case out of Portland Oregon.

"Motion for New Trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am

Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.

As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.

The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:

Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”

Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded that “in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).

And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.

Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);

Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));

First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).

All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.

And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.

Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.

But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).

And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.

The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).

Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.

But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others;

or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.

In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).

But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.

All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."

Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial

Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede



Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee. 

Peter Sivere - the SEC Knows about Massive Fraud like iViewit and they Protect Corporations and NOT Whistleblowers Like Peter Sivere and Eliot Bernstein.

"How did they not hear about this sooner? That's the question burned investors were asking the SEC in December 2008 when regulators charged Bernie Madoff with securities fraud for a multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme he'd been running for decades.

Turns out the SEC did hear about it--more than six times. But when whistleblowers sounded off, the agency turned a deaf ear.

A 2009 report released by the SEC Inspector General reveals that whistleblowers filed complaints involving Madoff as early as 1992. Over the next 16 years before Madoff confessed in 2008, the SEC received six "substantive complaints that raised significant red flags." But examiners never conducted a "thorough investigation" of Madoff's operations and they rejected additional evidence from whistleblowers like hedge-fund manager Harry Markopolous.

Markopolous is just one of a number of whistleblowers who in recent years has tried to alert the SEC of potential wrongdoing, only to be ignored or misunderstood.

And the number may be dwindling. Besides book-deals and obscure Person of the Year awards, tipsters have little incentive to come forward. The SEC's whistleblower "bounty" program hasn't offered much additional incentive. Since its creation in 1989, the little known program has made reward payments to only five claimants totaling $159,537.

A new report by the SEC Inspector General recommends that its whistleblower program be overhauled. In the meantime, wet your whistle on our list of the SEC's Biggest Whistleblower Blunders:"

Source and Full Article 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/14/the-secs-biggest-whistleb_n_529500.html#s79472&title=George_Demos_Peter

For More on the Peter Sivere Whistleblower Story
http://www.PeterSivere.com/

I have been talking to Peter Sivere for years and Thousands like him who tell the Department of Justice, the FBI, local cops and judges, attorneys, the SEC, the USPTO and more .. they Expose the truth with tons of proof and they are NOT heard, so they turn to me, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox because I get their story and documents in top placement in the search engines and for FREE.

More on the iViewit Story
http://www.DeniedPatent.com/

The SEC has known for over a decade and though shareholders of Intel, Warner Bros., Sony, AOL, Time Warner, and tons more will lose billions and they KNOW, the SEC hides corruption and protects Elite Law Firms such as Foley & Lardner, Greenberg Traurig and Proskauer Rose.  And the SEC ignores over a thousand documents of proof, depositions perjured, billing, tax records and tons of proof.  One day Shareholders involved in the iViewit Scandal will lost Billions and Ernst and Young and other auditors will have proved to have known the whole time and did NOT protect shareholders, investors deliberately, to favor protected Law Firms, Tech and Media Companies.

Warner Bros. Jeffrey Bewkes and Former General Counsel Curtis Lu ( now General Counsel for Lightsquared), will deny they knew and that will be a flat out lie as the iViewit Story has been online for over a decade and on my sites for over 3 years.  Curtis Lu and Jeffrey Bewkes know, and have fore a long time, there is audio of a conversation as recent as a year ago with Curtis Lu and one of the iViewit Inventors Eliot Bernstein. And Jeffrey Bewkes has ignored this issue for years even though Warner Bros. Time Warner had signed agreements and non-compete agreements with the iViewit Inventors.

Shareholders need to demand that the iViewit scandal be dealt with RIGHT NOW.  As every year costs Millions more per company.  Read the Documents, dig deep the SEC Knows and they are keeping it from you, the shareholders and investors to protect those involved.

It is time to demand that the Department of Justice, SEC, FBI, and more STOP protecting Elite Law Firms, Big Tech Companies and start protecting the PUBLIC that pays their wages and to whom they should be answering to.

iViewit SEC Complaint
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

More on the iViewit Stolen Technology
http://www.crystalcox.com/2011/12/eliot-bernstein-iviewit-testimony-new.html

Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskaur Rose Affiliations, Connections - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Iviewit Technology Theft

Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskaur Rose Affiliations, Connections - Judith Kaye

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT COURT ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION OF KRANE

KRANE COMPLAINT TO NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT

Steven Krane - the Attorney's Attorney Providing Legal Advice to the Proskaur Rose Law Firm.

Proskaur.com Bio in Part.."Steven Krane is a Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Dpartment, co-head of the Law Firm Practice Group, concentrating in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility, and is Proskauer's General Counsel, responsible for providing professional legal advice to the firm.

Steven represents law firms and individual lawyers in a variety of professional matters, including rendering opinions and counseling them on a daily basis on a broad range of professional matters including conflicts of interest, client confidentiality, cross-border legal practice issues, partnership disputes, internal investigations, ancillary businesses and alternative business structures for law firms. In addition, he defends law firms in litigated proceedings involving legal malpractice and other civil claims, represents individual lawyers before grievance and disciplinary committees and assists lawyers in disputes concerning admission to the Bar.

He has served as a litigation consultant and expert witness testifying on a variety of issues such as conflicts of interest, litigation conduct, legal malpractice, billing disputes, and solicitation of clients by lawyers leaving a law firm.

Steven is among the nation’s leaders in developing and interpreting the rules governing the professional conduct of lawyers. He is the immediate past chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, on which he served since 2004.

For 14 years, he has led the New York State Bar Association committee that is responsible for formulating the ethical rules governing New York lawyers. In 2007, he was appointed by Chief Judge Kaye to be co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law. He served as vice-chair of the NYSBA Special Committee on the Law Governing Firm Structure and Operation (the “MacCrate Committee”), chaired the successor to that committee, the Special Committee on Multidisciplinary Practice, and was recently named Vice-Chair of the International Bar Association Committee on Multidisciplinary Practices. "

More Gibberish at Source of Link
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/steven-krane/

Below Fromwww.Iviewit.TV

Former New York State Bar President and member of Disciplinary Committees and Ethics boards nationwide. Ordered for investigation of conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department.

The investigation has so far been thwarted, through further conflicts in New York, typical New York crooked politics but being from the Windy City, so named for corrupt politics, this will be New York's Greylord.

It was learned that conflict in New York led all the way to Chief Judge Judith Kaye, you guessed it, married to a Proskauer partner, a partner like Krane, Stephen Kaye, G0d now prancing upon his recently departed soul although he was soulless while living towards the end, a partner who was instantly added to newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department (formed instantly after learning of my inventions), although he had no history in IP law, hmmm.

Judge Judy Kaye is also conflicted up the butt with Krane, as he was her former whipping boy, serving as her lapdog clerk.

Krane attempts to use influence peddling like never before seen in Gotham to earn his Proskauer intellectual property partnership wings by blocking Iviewit never revealing his conflicts, until two years into the complaints when news of his conflicts surfaced.

Steven Krane and Judith Kaye (Judge Judy is now the proud conflicted owner of her dead husband Stephen Kaye's Proskauer shares of Iviewit) then had to bury the New York Supreme Court ordered investigation against them and the Proskauer partners, and in a feat unsurpassed in the annals or anals of New York, he ass kisses or offers it for the taking widely, to evade the investigation without even having to give a statement in his defense.

After five Supreme Court Justices unanimously voted for an INVESTIGATION, Stephen Krane, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Anthony Joao, did not even have to provide a response to that court, nor provide one to the department charged with the investigations.

Instead those disciplinary departments wrote little old me how they were going to dismiss it without investigation based on that he was a nice guy basically. It was as if the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, was actually doing his defense, as they tendered all letters on his behalf, he did not answer a single question or put forth a statement in his defense. You guessed it, the First Department and the Second Department are controlled by Proskauer attorneys, those charged with investigating the conflicts, upon a little scratch of the surface were also found in conflict with the matters, Krane and Kaye, and yet they continued handling the complaints against Proskauer and its partners. So assured that top down control of the courts could never be penetrated with Judith Kaye and Stephen Krane controlling them that they acted as if they were above the law.

Perhaps they are above the law, in crime festered New York but they are not above the law of G0d.

Of course I did not order the investigation, a bunch of judges did.

So it begs one to ask why they confronted me to try and evade the investigations and not the court that ordered it. The answer, they could not answer the court with the results of the investigation, as no investigation was ever done and they tried to claim dismissing the case on review was equal to an investigation.

No witnesses were called, no evidence submitted tested, these guys did not even have to tender a response.

How much payola do you think that it costs to buy off three court ordered investigations? With the help of Judge Judy Kaye and some very large illegal gains from the stolen technologies to make people obfuscate their public office duties, they have succeeded but for the moment at evading charges.

Steven Krane stands as the most despicable man in the history of legal ethics, currently found trying to amend laws to protect him and others from prosecution. Perhaps Ken Lay hired him to write some laws to prevent loss of his estate from death or the Bush group has him rewriting war codes to justify torture and protect from prosecution.

Either way, there may soon be a lot of Proskauer and other corrupted lawyers cited herein, wishing for an artery to pop to the brain, with Krane's obese gluttony, he will be first. (I was wrong here, Judy's husband Stephen Krane, G0d unrest his soul, was the first to leave this earthly world for hell for his actions.)

Krane Complaint First Department Exposing Conflicts and Violations of Public Office. Krane then goes on to really fuck himself when he writes his own defense of his bar complaint, failing to disclose his conflicting positions at the disciplinary department and further concealing them in an effort to deny he was caught, this little lie cost him orders for investigation.

Krane Suicide Letter

Steven Krane was busted immediately following that letter, after Clerk of the Court, Catherine O’Hagan Wolf identified that Steven Krane was in fact a member of the disciplinary committee that his letter denied, in fact she sat on several committee’s with Steven Krane and was stunned that he would be handling a complaint against himself or his partners, she suggested Iviewit file the Motion with the Court that led to the unanimous ruling for investigation.

OK breaking news in November 2007 comes in the form of Krane's buddy at the First Department, Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York First Department, DDC. Thomas Cahill is busted for burying and whitewashing complaints against attorneys that he is charged with investigating.

Oh, shit gets really bad as the informant is an insider, a 62 yr old black female attorney, who is victimized, physically assaulted and terminated for her bravery to stand up to wrongdoings at the Department. In a $100M Federal Lawsuit, she names Iviewit in P. 97 of the complaint, as a cause of termination.

Oh shit, Thomas Cahill and Steven Krane and their scam exposed from the inside, Holy Cow Batman, Gotham Uppy Ups are going down, The New York Law Journal writes a story exposing Cahill and others for derailing complaints against attorneys, exactly what Iviewit is claiming to the Feds.

Holy Big Shit Batman, The New York Times follows with an even more devastating article and now New York is on fire, Kerik, the whole criminal political crime family composed of scumbag lawyers, judges and politicians is flaming downward, hell awaits, my smiling face to greet them.

All this shit started by an investigative reporter at Expose Corrupt Courts, a one ballsy Frank Brady, in a time of journalistic lack of integrity and complacency with the corruptions read by propaganda readers like Blitzer (whose his daddy), Sanchez (where did this guy get his journalistic wings) and other script readers, Brady emerges as something of a Ben Bradlee, a Woodward, a Bernstein.

My kudos also go to Dan Wise of the New York Law Journal and Paul Vitello of the New York Times for having the balls to expose corruption New York's Heart of Darkness."

Source:

http://www.iviewit.tv/

Eliot Bernstein Site on the Iviewit Stolent Patent

Original Proskauer Rose - iViewit Post 

http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/steven-c-krane-esq-proskaur-rose.html

More on Iviewit Story at 

http://www.iviewit.tv/

Proof of Proskauer Rose Corruption

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

Proskauer Rose Involved in iViewit Technology Theft

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm
Proskauer Rose Crime Chart

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Appendix%20A/index.htm#proskauer
Proskauer Rose Connections

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

Proskauer Rose Lawyers involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft. Proskauer Ross LLP Steals Technology. Proskauer Rose Causes Massive Shareholder Fraud. Proskauer Rose Lies. Proskauer Rose Attorney Commits Perjury.

"2002 10 16 Notice of Appeal on Jorge Labarga case.


1962002 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.


1972002 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.


1982002 11 20 Kenneth Rubenstein full deposition with Exhibits CERT. I KNOW NOTHING!


1992002 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

2002002 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.

2012002 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.
2022002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition does not know about video invention.
203"2002 11 21 Christopher Wheeler deposition regarding no conflicts check, neither him or Kenneth Rubenstein are sure a conflicts check was ever done.

2042002 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.


2052002 11 21 Wheeler deposition statement that no Proskauer conflict of interest check was done.

2062002 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."

2072002 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.

2122003 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.

2132003 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.

2142003 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.

2152003 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.

2162003 02 26 Original Rubenstein Bar Action

2172003 02 26 Original Florida Bar Complaint against Proskauer and Christopher Wheeler.

218

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. 

2192003 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. 

220

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.

2212003 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.

2222003 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.

2232003 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.

2242003 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.

2252003 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.

2262003 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!!!!!

2272003 04 16 Supreme Court of New York First Department Disciplinary Committee regarding reply to Raymond Joao complaint.

2003 09 19 Motion for mistrial in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case based on the insane actions of Judge Jorge Labarga.

282
2003 09 23 United States Patent & Trademark Office - Office of Enrollment & Discipline written statement to Harry I Moatz, Director of the OED. Corrected.

283
2003 09 23 Virginia Bar Complaint filed against William J. Dick and Foley & Lardner for Dick's patent crimes.

284
2003 09 25 Certified letter to Harry I. Moatz and William Dick.

285
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.

286
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. 

287
2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Missing

288
2003 10 02 - Letter to Florida Bar - Not Signed Missing Exhibits

289
2003 10 02 Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar to re-file the complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler as the civil litigation was completed.

290
2003 10 02 Iviewit letter to The Florida Bar to re-file the complaint against Christopher Clark Wheeler as the civil litigation was completed.
Source of Proskauer Rose Post

http://www.deniedpatent.com/search/label/Proskauer%20Rose%20LLP

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Eye on Proskauer Rose