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

Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg desperate to hide the Truth about Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg involved in iViewit Technology Theft.

The Hypocrits Liars and Thieves at Proskauer Rose Law Firm seem to thing that ReputationDefender will do such a great job making an Elite International Law Firm Look like children on a school project with this internet thing.  As ReputationDefender gets DUMB Domain Names and puts out fluff as if those Researching Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg can't look at the 1200 documents of FACT that Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg are involved in a 13 Trillion Dollar Scandal of which has caused massive shareholder fraud.

Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg have also used WIPO ( World Intellectual Property Organization ) to STOP my Investigative blogs on Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg, telling the Truth about Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg .

Do you have a Tip on Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg  ?

If you have a Tip on Proskauer Rose LLP or Gregg Mashberg please email your Proskauer Rose LLP and Gregg Mashberg tip to me Crystal@CrystalCox.com .

Here is the Fluff on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm by ReputationDefender - Don't Believe the Hype on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm Look at the Links at the Bottom on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm and do your homework on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm, if any of my links on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm are down, email me for documents on Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP Law Firm first hand - Crystal@CrystalCox.com - Real Research on the TRUTH about Gregg Mashberg of Prokauer Rose LLP Law Firm.

"About Gregg Mashberg

Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose currently co-heads the leading New York law firm’s Securities Litigation &; Enforcement Group Experienced in appearing before trial and appellate courts throughout the United States, Gregg Mashberg has been admitted to the United States Supreme Court, as well as to the Second, Third, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals and the Eastern and Southern Districts of the U.S. District Court of New York. With wide-ranging expertise in many areas of law, Mashberg holds an impressive record of successful litigation.

Recently, in his work for Proskauer Rose, Gregg Mashberg succeeded in winning a summary judgment for a prominent British corporation in a commercial dispute, which resulted in the dismissal of a complaint seeking $100 million in damages. Additionally, Mashberg has also secured a $3 million federal jury verdict for a client in a stockholders’ derivative action resulting from a Wall Street brokerage house closing its doors. Furthermore, in addition to his corporate litigation work with Proskauer Rose, Gregg Mashberg continues his practice in public law from the early days of his career as an Assistant Chief of the General Litigation Division of the City of New York’s Law Department by representing various city organizations facing law suits. For example, Mashberg successfully defended the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority against a legal challenge to the organization’s decision to increase tolls and fares in 2003.

Moreover, Gregg Mashberg has also worked to extend medical services in New York City by representing St. Vincent’s Catholic Medical Center in an Article 78 proceeding that sought to overturn the decision made by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to permit the medical center from demolishing a building located in the Greenwich Village Historic District.

The demolition was sought in order to permit construction of a new $850 million expansion for the hospital. A graduate of the NYU Law School, Gregg Mashberg was elected to the Buffalo Law Review where he completed his first year of legal study."

Source of Proskauer Rose Gregg Mashberg Post

http:// gregg mashberg .word press.com/ about/

 Proskauer Rose Gregg Mashberg

http://www.antitrustviolations.com/2010/09/gregg-m-mashberg-covers-up-massive.html

http://www.federalricolawsuit.com/2010/10/proskauer-rose-llp-gregg-m-mashberg.html

Proskauer Rose Involved in Fraud on the US Patent Office? Is Proskauer Rose Joseph Leccese Really Looking into the iViewit Case?

"MPEG - Proskauer Rose LLP Stealing Inventions - A fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Eliot I. Bernstein on Sunday, January 22nd, 2006 @ 09:21PM www.iviewit.tvMy name is Eliot Bernstein and I am one of the inventors of the Iviewit inventions.

Many of the quotes here are from me and the proof for many of these claims can be found at the www.iviewit.tv website. Simply go to left navigation bar and click on the Supreme Court button and then click on either Appendix C or Exhibit Gallery.

Although voluminous in size, the exhibits are chalk full of evidence and information regarding the ongoing investigations. Also, much can be learned at the Iviewit blog at http://patentgate.blogspot.com .

In response to this post, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer Rose LLPtook invention disclosures from Iviewit inventors and patented those concepts into their management referral, Brian Utley's name. Rubenstein also contracted Raymond Joao at the law firm Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel to file the applications, while Rubenstein and Proskauer handled all of the other intellectual property work, including Rubenstein acting as a board member and opining to many investors on the inventions.

Joao worked at the law firm that Kenneth Rubenstein was at immediately prior to his learning of theIviewit inventions, MLGWS and then after learning of the inventions,Rubenstein instantly jumped to Proskauer, a firm that had no other intellectual property department to speak of and had been a real estate firm since the 1800's.

Proskauer Rose had already been retained and began work for Iviewit prior to Rubenstein leaving Meltzer. In fact, Kenneth Rubenstein and Joao were initially represented as Proskauer attorneys, although they were still at Meltzer. Joao filed patents into his own name while retained by Iviewit to file patents as Rubenstein’s lackey. Joao’s patents contained many of the ideas he and Kenneth Rubenstein learned from the Iviewit inventors, the disclosures and business plans of Iviewit. 

It is absurd to think that a patent attorney could file any patents in his name without a thorough conflict waiver from all clients and approval from the patent bar. History has never had a case where the patent attorney ran out and filed a blizzard of patents all crossing into his clients patent applications. Joao was also part of an elaborate scheme to move the patents out ofIviewit and into companies that Proskauer set up that had similar and identical names to the Iviewit companies.

Yet, the shareholder of those companies appears to be Proskauer Rose and others, not the true Iviewit shareholders or inventors.

Iviewit shareholders, including the SBA were totally unaware that these similar companies had been set up and unawarethat that similar patents were being filed into these companies with the false inventor BrianUtley, false owners and assignees.

Joao was discovered patenting ideas into his name and other dubious behavior and he was fired for his actions. Proskauer and Utley referred William Dick of Foley and Lardner to replace Joao, Utley stated that Dick was the IBM Far East patent attorney and his very close personal friend. 

The original Proskauer attorney, Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq.(recently arrested in Del Ray Beach, FL for DUI with bodily injury) failed to disclose that he, Utley and Dick were involved in intellectual property crimes from Utley's former employ, Diamond Turf Equipment owned by Monte Freidkin of Boca Raton.

Friedkin discovered that patents were walking out the door to Utley's sole (souless) name and fired him. It was not learned until Wheeler andUtley's deposition and Dick's response to the Virginia Bar that the three of them had been involved in the crime.

Wheeler set up the company, Dick wrote the patents from Utley's employer secretly into Utley's name at home and Utley got in and stole the inventions from his employer.

This is the same type of scam that they instituted on Iviewit and again appear to be failing achieving their ends. Dick was Joao's replacement and since it was never disclosed by any of them, the fact of their prior past patent theft attempt, Iviewit was dumbfounded to find this prior history out after learning they were stealing Iviewit inventions.

Moreover, Wheeler and Proskauer submitted a resume on Utley that claimed that Diamond Turf went on to be a huge success do to Utley's inventions, when the truth was that the company was instantly closed by Friedkin after he found Utley stealing from his company while acting as the President of Friedkin’s company.

Utley failed to disclose this, Wheeler and Proskauer never disclosed this when Iviewit retained them and Dick and Foley failed to inform us of Dick's past with this group.

This is a criminal organization of patent thieves, they have a history and they are a danger to inventors, good lawyers everywhere and the United States and foreign countries patent systems.

I am not against patent attorneys filing patents as long as there is a hefty review by the patent department or the USTPO OED, to investigate if those attorney inventions lay claim on any client inventions they may have represented or as in our case misrepresented.

It is very dangerous for patent attorneys to be patenting inventions for themselves while representing client interests, and the obvious collusion amongst patent attorneys to work together to steal each others clients inventions remains a gaping hole.

Yet these guys filed false oaths on applications in others names for inventions they learned while retained by the Iviewit inventors,no excuse can be had for this, this is plain theft, fraud on the patent office, fraud on the Iviewit inventors, the Iviewit shareholders and all the EPO foreign offices and the history of the world and invention.

This is not even close to a patent attorney having a novel idea (although that seems far fetched as attorneys are not typically inventive) and then patenting it in his name with no client involved. Joao has stated that some of his inventions were prior to ours and that Iviewit was in fact infringing on his inventions (he claimed this to the New York Supreme CourtAppellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee), yet Joao failed to seek waivers or disclose this in writing or verbally to anyone seems absurd.

I find it further disgusting that MPEG patent inclusion is controlled by a single person, Kenneth Rubenstein, where the temptation is all to obvious.

Patent pooling schemes have been killed historically by the Justice Department for the very reasons that Iviewit complains of, anti-competitive monopolistic practices that violate Sherman and Clayton and almost every antitrust practice. Patent pooling schemes created by lawyers to make money as middlemen also seems to violate ethics.

For instance, how canProskauer and Rubenstein profit from MPEG as counsel for MPEG (as Rubenstein discloses in his deposition at the Iviewit Exhibit gallery) and at the same time take invention disclosure as inventors counsel under Proskauer for review when the patent concepts could completely render MPEG useless, as the Iviewit inventions do, destroying Rubenstein and now PRoskauers pooling schemes?

How can Rubenstein review Iviewit patents for MPEG and at the same time give Iviewit unbiased advice on their patents or control their fate by inclusion or exclusion, while Proskauer and Rubenstein are direct benefactors of the MPEGLA pool profits?

The conflict is as wide as the Grand Canyon, no China Wall, in fact an open door for crime to occur, crimes that violate Article 1, Section 8,Clause 8 inventor protections by those entrusted to protect those rights as part of the patent bar. The obvious is happening here, MPEG andProskauer have found a way to review patents as patent counsel and then steal them as patent poolers looking to profit from others inventions.

The first complaint that was filed at the patent office was in an invention format as a joke, not a joke to laugh at, it was appropriately titled, "System and Method for Committing Fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the Iviewit Inventors". I wonder if the patent department will approve it? lol... This is the only thing that Joao,Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Dick, Foley and Lardner, Brian Utley and others accused, ever invented.

Please feel free to contact me for further information or an interview.
wEliot I. BernsteinInventorIviewit Technologies, Inc.
iviewit@iviewit.tv
www.iviewit.tv
http://patentgate.blogspot.com "
r
Source of Post
http://patentgate.blogspot.com/

Posted Here By
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger