Proskauer Rose Law Firm continues to be Protected for White Collar Crimes, Perjury, Patent Theft, Investor Fraud, Stealing Inventions, Defrauding Clients, Billing Fraud and More in the Case of iViewit Technologies.

Proskauer Rose LLP - Billing Discrepancies - Missing Pages and ... More on Proskauer Rose involved in iViewit Technology Theft.

Proskauer Rose Billing Entries

Proskauer Rose Missing Paid Bills

Iviewit Holdings Missing Page

Iviewit General Corporate Advice

Iviewit General Corporate Advice P16

Iviewit General Corporate Advice - Missing Page

Numbers Done in Different Text Document

Missing Page Number in Different Font

General Corporate Advice P17

Missing Page

Proskauer Rose Lawyers WERE involved in the iViewit Scandal

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com 

Eye on Proskauer Rose

Original Post by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox to WARN others of what Proskauer Rose Law Firm has done and how the Wall of Corruption in New York and Florida Courts protect Proskauer Rose, as does the SEC, the DOJ, the FBI, and the USPTO.
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-billing.html

Joseph Leccese, Protected Elite Law Firm Proskauer Rose IGNORES the Crimes of Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein in the iViewit Technology Theft

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Patent Attorney from Proskauer Rose LLP - Working with MPEG LA. Kenneth Rubenstein Perjured himself in Depositions Regarding the Iviewit Technologies Patents in Which Kenneth Rubenstein was Directly Involved in Derailing the Rightful Inventors to Getting their Rightful Patent.

MPEG LA - with the Help of Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney, Pooled the Technology in patents and well the Iviewit Inventors NEVER got rights or any compensation for the Mult-Trillion Dollar Invention that WE ALL USE.


Part 1


Part 2


Part 3


Part 4


Part 5


Part 6 - Final

www.Iviewit.TVFor More on Iviewit

http://www.proskauerfraud.com/
more on Proskauer Rose Corruption

http://www.alexisdevane.com/
more on MPEG LA Corruption and Kenneth Rubenstein
Corrupt Patent Attorney.

posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com


Gregg Mashberg Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Shareholder Fraud.


Gregg Mashberg Proskauer Rose Law Firm is covering up Massive Shareholder Fraud in the iViewit Technology Theft involving Proskauer Rose Patent Attorneys.
NDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010

United States District Judge

Re: Bernstein V. Appellate Division, First Department

"Dear Judge Scheindlin:

We represent defendants Proskaur Rose LLP, Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane, and the Estate of Stephen R. Kaye. We write to request a pre-motion conference in order to bring a motion to (i) stay service of Plaintiff's amended complaint, due to be filed by May 10, 2008, on all of the new defendants to be named therein...., pending your Honor's disposition of the motions to dismiss the amended comlaint... to be filed ... by the defendants named in the original complaint...

... 

Source of Post and Full Document Click Below

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20Proskauer%20to%20Scheindlin%20to%20block%20amended.pdf

Proskauer Rose Law Firm controls Judges, SEC, USPTO, DOJ, FBI and More in the Cover up of a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent Theft over the iViewit Technology



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

2003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.
2003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.

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.


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.


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


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

Original Proskauer Rose Corruption over Iviewit post by Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-kenneth-rubenstein.html

Proskauer Rose Law Firm is Protected by New York Courts as they Participate in Massive Shareholder Fraud over the iViewit Scandal


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

New York's Wall of Corruption is Protected by Andrew Coumo and his Cronies. Inventors like Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit pay the price.

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

Originally posted by Crystal L. Cox Blogger at Link Below
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/steven-c-krane-esq-proskaur-rose.html

Proskauer Rose LLP, Robert J. Kafin - Securities Fraud - USPTO Fraud - Shareholder Fraud - Anti-Trust Violations - Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Sucks - Proskauer Rose Corruption


Proskauer Rose Law Firm - RICO Complaint Proskauer Rose

Patent & Copyright Misappropriations

•Co-Directs Frauds: USPTO; EPO; JPO;
Wachovia Securities Fraud;
Iviewit Shareholder Fraud;

•Contributory Antitrust Violations

•Co-Directs RICO Violations

•Tortuous Interference with Business Relationships

•Conflicts of Interest

For More Affiliations, Conflicts of Interest Click on Link Below.

Link to Source Of this Post
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/KAFIN.htm


Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Eye on Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose

Originally Posted ..
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-robert-j-kafin.html

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

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

Originally Posted at Link Below in an ongoing effort by Crystal Cox Blogger to expose corruption in our courts and to fight for the rights of Inventors and victims of the protection of Elite Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose and Foley &; Lardner.
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/what-does-head-guy-at-proskauer-rose.html

Teresa Rea, David Kappos, the USPTO, the SEC and More protect Warner Bros. with PROVEN documentation of Massive Shareholder Fraud.

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 ? The SEC Flat out lies in their Fraudulent Whistleblower Program that in NO WAY protects Whistle Blower or promotes more Whistleblowers to come forward.

Blogger Crystal Cox has been fighting, posting for years to get the iViewit Story found in the Search Engines in hopes of getting the iViewit Inventors justice and in hopes of exposing the US Bankruptcy System involved in this patent theft, and the corruption in the USPTO, SEC, DOJ and more that protect the criminals and turn the victims into the bad guy, the criminals.  This post was previously posted on link below in effort to EXPOSE Massive Shareholder Fraud with the Power of Internet Marketing and Search Engine Reputation Placement to get the crimes of the "Bad Guys" found.
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/warner-bros-signed-non-disclosure.html

iViewit Technology Theft. MPEG LA, DVD Licensing, Toshiba - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division

More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement.Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?

June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General

" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064

Dear Mr. Ramos:

This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.

You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.

I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats

The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.

(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.

The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,

(2) established the Standard Specifications.

(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.

II. The Proposed Arrangement

A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders

(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:

(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);

(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and

(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.

(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.

(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.

(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."

(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."

(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.

(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.

(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"

(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.

(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.

(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.

(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.

(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.

(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.

(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."

(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."

(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.

(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.

(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."

(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)


Full Letter and Source of Post
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm

Save and Print the Above for Your Records.

Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY know that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.

No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.

More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

my Original Post to Warn Shareholders, Expose Corruption, Fight for Inventors Rights and demand that the SEC, FBI, DOJ, USPTO and more investigate the crimes in the iViewit case and STOP ignoring the rights of victims in favor of Elite Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose LLP
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/mpeg-la-dvd-licensing-toshiba-letter.html