Patent Theft, Background on the Iviewit Stolen Technology.

"A Background of the Iviewit Inventions

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

With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, I appallingly write at the cross current, by and between parties described herein, pattern of frauds, deceits, and misrepresentations that run so wide and so deep that it tears at the very fabric of what has become to be know as free commerce in this country, and, in the fact that it pertains to inventors rights, tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States more fully described below.

I write to you with, Eliot I. Bernstein, who was factually present throughout all of these events and so has contributed to assure the veracity of the statements herein and provide credible witness to the events described herein prior to my joining Iviewit.

Mr. Bernstein is the main inventor of the technologies, inventions which he claims to have come from divine origin with a divine purpose.

On or about 1997, Iviewit’s founder, Eliot I. Bernstein and other inventors, came upon inventions pertaining to what industry experts have heretofore described as profound shifts from traditional techniques in video and imaging then overlooked in the annals of digital video and imaging technologies.

Factually, the main video technology is one of capturing a video frame at a, including but not limited to, 320 by 240 frame size (roughly, ¼ of a display device) at a frame rate of one (1) to infinity frames per second (“fps” and at the twenty four (24) to thirty (30) range commonly referred to as “full frame rates” to those skilled in the art).

Moreover, once captured, and in its simplest terms, the scaled frames are then digitized (if necessary), filtered, encoded, and delivered to an agnostic display device and then scaled to a full frame size of, including but not limited to, 1280 by 960 at the full frame rates of 24 to 30 fps. The result is, when combined with other proprietary technologies, high quality video at bandwidths of 56 or more Kbps to 6 Mbps per second, at a surprising seventy five percent (75%!) savings in throughput/bandwidth on any digital delivery system such as digital terrestrial, cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a similar 75%! savings in storage on mediums such as digital video discs “DVD’s” and the hard drives of many consumer electronic devices.

Also, these savings result in a 75%! decrease in the necessary processing power to encode the video, making old school concepts of parallel processors obsolete and allowing the process of encoding to occur on even a laptop.

Therefore, the video technology opened new markets therefore in both low bandwidth video as is found on cell phones and the Internet to the other end of the spectrum to high end video such as HDDVD, etc. changing even the way television was created, transmitted and viewed, a change from interlacing to the new Iviewit scaling processes, allowing cable companies to increase channel throughput by 75%!

Moreover, on the imaging side, the Iviewit inventions are used on almost every digital camera and present screen design and other devices that utilize the feature of “digital zoom”, whereby the imaging technology provided a way to zoom almost infinitely on a low resolution file with clarity, solving for pixilation that was inherent in the prior art.

Furthermore, industry observers who benefited from the Iviewit disclosures have gone on to claim "you could have put 10,000 engineers in a room for 10,000 years and they would never have come up with these ideas…”

These engineers similarly claimed, to a broad audience, that the technologies were "priceless", the "Holy Grail" of the digital imaging and video world.

Still further, it should be clear, as it relates to the inventions, that we are not talking about some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, where the inventors went back to square one to create a wholly novel elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video and image frames to unlock former bandwidth constraints, led to new processing and storage capabilities and took the video and imaging worlds to a new dimension.

Moreover, if these inventions become the subject of say a court ordered injunction while investigations are ongoing, it would preclude the use of the technologies while the courts resolve these matters, similar to the recent case almost brought in the RIM/Blackberry matter.

Although dwarfed in comparison, that injunction would have shut Blackberry down to users had the parties not settled the matters, by way of tremendous pressure from the Court, the courts being on of the biggest users of the technology.

The results of an injunction of the Iviewit technologies would be catastrophic to the country in that the product recall alone would be devastating to commerce, shutting down video across the Internet, recalling low bandwidth cell phones, recalling digital camera’s with digital zoom, halting the transmission of 75% of cable channels, recalling medical devices that use scaled zoom, recalling technologies on the Hubble Space Telescope and other government uses, such as flight and space simulators, advanced weapons systems, etc.

These matters are of tantamount importance to federal and international commerce in countless ways, making the job of resolving the crimes against Iviewit a matter of national security concern unprecedented in the history of invention and law.

Furthermore, initially, and early in my tenure, rumors began swirling around the company with finger pointing and all from Florida to Los Angeles wherein it caught the jet stream and arrived very soon in New York of alleged breaches of confidentiality pertaining to Iviewit technology, transfers of trade secrets, and, even in certain circumstances, the knowing and willful invention fraud by the outright switching of signature pages of patent filings by early patent counsels.

Additionally, during my tenure, I was in possession of an executed patent application pertaining to Iviewit’s core imaging technology with the inventors of Bernstein and Shirajee, when, out of thin air, and just prior to filing, with no notice or authorization, such patent application witnesses the addition of a one Brian G. Utley as an inventor, and an individual who could not have been farther from the heat of the inventive stage of the imaging technology.

Still further, I submit that at the first disclosures of the inventions, patent counsel, including Kenneth Rubenstein (also sole patent evaluator and legal counsel to MPEG LA), who had spent half a lifetime attempting and failing to procure technologies for the transmission of full screen, full frame rate video across a variety of transmission networks, and who during the Iviewit disclosures had been known to state

“[I] missed that,”

and
“[I] never thought of that,”

and
“[This] changes everything,”

or words to those effects, Kenneth Rubenstein was perhaps so fearful that Iviewit would partner with other proprietary technologies across the video value chain that it could wipe his carefully crafted patent pools off the face of the map, therefore, the Iviewit inventions HAD to be converted to MPEGLA, LLC to preserve those pools and convert his client Iviewit's technologies to his pools, of course blocking Iviewit at the same time from market using typical anti-trust tactics commonly associated with patent pools of the past and the reason the Justice Department has typically broken such pools up, as they are anti-competitive, monopolistic in nature.

That was the first step, with the second step, through the direct and indirect introductions of Iviewit, with executed confidentiality agreements (“NDA’s”), to some five hundred potential licensees by colleagues of counsel, being the proliferation of Iviewit disclosures across a wide array of potential licensees and competitors.

In addition to tying and bundling the technologies into his patent pool licensing scheme, again in violation of most of the anti-trust laws.

Following along, we arrive at the point in the past when Iviewit had thought the Iviewit inventions had been filed at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office and that everyone had begun to use it, when past management in Iviewit and patent counsel were found writing patents in patent counsels name and other non-inventor management names, in addition to the intentional unauthorized changes of inventors, owners and assignees.

Later, as Arthur Andersen conducted an audit on behalf of investor Crossbow Ventures whose funds were 2/3 Small Business Administration loans, evidence emerged of a corporate shell game involving multiple, unauthorized, similarly named corporate formations, unauthorized stock swaps and unauthorized asset transfers that resulted in the core patent applications assigned to entities that may have only one shareholder, perhaps the limited liability partnership of Proskauer Rose or other unauthorized holders, including the alleged perpetrating patent counsel, perhaps, with a view towards resurrecting the backbone technologies at some future point only converted illegally as their own.

Moreover, in a September 2006 letter to Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY 18th) I wrote that in the above series of allegations, Iviewit is confident that your Office will find a reasonable certainty that Messrs.

Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. of Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Esq. of Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel and William J. Dick, Esq., Steven Becker, Esq., and Douglas Boehm, Esq. of Foley and Lardner, all Iviewit Patent Counsel and present or former members of the distinguished Bar of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, designed and executed, either for themselves or others similarly situated, the deceptions, improprieties, and, even in certain circumstances, outright misappropriation by the disingenuous redirection of the disclosed Iviewit techniques by:

(i) burying the critical elements of the inventions in patent applications filed on behalf of the true Iviewit Shareholders & Inventors;

(ii) allowing the unauthorized use of Iviewit’s inventions under NDA’s without enforcement of said NDA’s;

(III) filing patent applications of their own or others based on the Iviewit inventions into false inventors names and illegally set up corporations;

(IV) submitting knowingly false statements and falsified documents done with intent to commit fraud on the USPTO (a federal offense), Iviewit’s shareholders, and the Iviewit Inventors.

[It should be noted here that these attorneys and others are now under formal investigation by patent offices worldwide that have been ongoing for several years].

Furthermore, in that same Rep. Lowey letter, that as a result of the series of allegations enclosed, and although it is clear to Iviewit that the role of Congress is to make law not to enforce law, Iviewit finds it reasonable that your Office:

(i) shall find the requisite merit to initiate Congressional investigations;

(ii) shall pass these allegations to a Congressional staff attorney in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for further investigation;

(iii) shall instruct said staff attorney to institute a formal Congressional investigation, including questioning, requests for records, and other information from all parties involved;

(iv) shall refer said attorney’s findings back to you as a Representative in the Congress of the United States;

(v) shall present such findings to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for determinative review; and finally

(vi) shall witness said Congressional committee to urge disciplinary action against the alleged offending attorneys by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or other organization, agency, or court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Lastly, Iviewit often asks itself, among other things, “Why did the Hon. Jorge LaBarga of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, Florida deny Iviewit’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim for Damages (concerning the aforementioned allegations)” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida - The Florida Bar (‘TFB’) dismiss the complaint against Christopher C. Wheeler, Esq. (‘Wheeler’ and, a non-patent attorney, a main protagonist of the above referenced allegations) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida deny Iviewit’s Petition to begin the immediate investigation of the Christopher Wheeler complaint (when The Florida Bar admitted in writing that the answer to the Wheeler complaint was authored by an attorney, Matthew Triggs of Proskauer Rose, in flagrant violation of his public office obligations)” and

“Why did the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee stall Iviewit’s complaint against Rubenstein and Joao despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and

“Why, despite the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department’s Court Order (unanimously voted on by five Justices) to begin the immediate investigation of Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane (former NYSBA President & Proskauer partner who handled complaints against Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein while maintaining undisclosed roles at the First Department) and Raymond Joao, for conflicts and violations of New York Supreme Court public offices, did the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee charged with conducting an immediate investigation dismiss on review the Rubenstein and Joao complaints and stating that they were ‘not under the jurisdiction’ of the First Department Court” [thus no witnesses were contacted, no evidence was tested and the attorneys did not even have to respond formally or informally to the charges against them]

and "When conflicts were discovered at the Second Department with Krane why were complaints refused by the Second Department to be formally docketed against their members caught in conflict, those members denying complaints against themselves???"

and “Why did the Virginia Bar Association dismiss the William Dick complaint despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that the United States Patent Office had suspended the Iviewit patents based on a Foley and Lardner intellectual property docket submitted to the VBA that had factually false and misleading information regarding patent inventors, owners and assignees” and

“Why did the Supreme Court of the United States decline to hear Iviewit’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the Florida Court’s decision, which acted to block Iviewit from filing complaints against Florida Supreme Court officers caught in conflicts of interest and violations of public offices”

and “why did John Doll & Jon Dudas, Commissioners' of Patents at the USPTO, fail to correct the inventors, and refuse to take or return Iviewit’s call or respond to formal office filings, including a petition filed more than three years ago by Iviewit and its lead investor Crossbow Ventures/SBA, which led to the suspending of patent applications pending ongoing investigations” and Iviewit finds itself answering

“THAT IT IS ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE TOTAL DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THE PATTERN OF FRAUDS, DECEITS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT RUN SO WIDE AND SO DEEP THAT IT TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF WHAT HAS BECOME TO BE KNOW AS FREE COMMERCE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND, IN THE FACT THAT IT PERTAINS TO INVENTORS RIGHTS, TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

Lastly, take to heart this following series of events that, from Tokyo to Munich and all places in between, has been commonly described as THE GREATEST PATENT STORY EVER TOLD while at the same time becoming one of the most bungled crimes in history, perhaps the largest crime ever perpetrated in the history of crime itself;

crimes constituting further a treasonous series of actions to rob the United States Commerce Department, the country's greatest jewel, the United States Patent & Trademark Offices, usurping Free Commerce as we know it in America in the process!

The cover-up, well to say the least, constitutes violation after violation of sworn oaths by government officials entrusted to uphold justice, elevating perhaps throughout the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches, creating a government of criminal activity, a "Culture of Corruption" (paralleling the reality you now live in) all to deny due process and procedure, evade prosecution of the complaints filed against them and stave off the inevitable federal prison time for their actions, as further described herein.

Source:
www.Iviewit.TV
video tech news

Read more...

Word from former Iviewit CEO and Shareholder P. Stephen Lamont

"A Background of the Iviewit Inventions

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

With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, I appallingly write at the cross current, by and between parties described herein, pattern of frauds, deceits, and misrepresentations that run so wide and so deep that it tears at the very fabric of what has become to be know as free commerce in this country, and, in the fact that it pertains to inventors rights, tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States more fully described below.

I write to you with, Eliot I. Bernstein, who was factually present throughout all of these events and so has contributed to assure the veracity of the statements herein and provide credible witness to the events described herein prior to my joining Iviewit. Mr. Bernstein is the main inventor of the technologies, inventions which he claims to have come from divine origin with a divine purpose.

On or about 1997, Iviewit’s founder, Eliot I. Bernstein and other inventors, came upon inventions pertaining to what industry experts have heretofore described as profound shifts from traditional techniques in video and imaging then overlooked in the annals of digital video and imaging technologies. Factually, the main video technology is one of capturing a video frame at a, including but not limited to, 320 by 240 frame size (roughly, ¼ of a display device) at a frame rate of one (1) to infinity frames per second (“fps” and at the twenty four (24) to thirty (30) range commonly referred to as “full frame rates” to those skilled in the art).

Moreover, once captured, and in its simplest terms, the scaled frames are then digitized (if necessary), filtered, encoded, and delivered to an agnostic display device and then scaled to a full frame size of, including but not limited to, 1280 by 960 at the full frame rates of 24 to 30 fps. The result is, when combined with other proprietary technologies, high quality video at bandwidths of 56 or more Kbps to 6 Mbps per second, at a surprising seventy five percent (75%!) savings in throughput/bandwidth on any digital delivery system such as digital terrestrial, cable, satellite, multipoint-multichannel delivery system, or the Internet, and a similar 75%! savings in storage on mediums such as digital video discs “DVD’s” and the hard drives of many consumer electronic devices.

Also, these savings result in a 75%! decrease in the necessary processing power to encode the video, making old school concepts of parallel processors obsolete and allowing the process of encoding to occur on even a laptop. Therefore, the video technology opened new markets therefore in both low bandwidth video as is found on cell phones and the Internet to the other end of the spectrum to high end video such as HDDVD, etc. changing even the way television was created, transmitted and viewed, a change from interlacing to the new Iviewit scaling processes, allowing cable companies to increase channel throughput by 75%!

Moreover, on the imaging side, the Iviewit inventions are used on almost every digital camera and present screen design and other devices that utilize the feature of “digital zoom”, whereby the imaging technology provided a way to zoom almost infinitely on a low resolution file with clarity, solving for pixilation that was inherent in the prior art.

Furthermore, industry observers who benefited from the Iviewit disclosures have gone on to claim "you could have put 10,000 engineers in a room for 10,000 years and they would never have come up with these ideas…” These engineers similarly claimed, to a broad audience, that the technologies were "priceless", the "Holy Grail" of the digital imaging and video world.

Still further, it should be clear, as it relates to the inventions, that we are not talking about some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, where the inventors went back to square one to create a wholly novel elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video and image frames to unlock former bandwidth constraints, led to new processing and storage capabilities and took the video and imaging worlds to a new dimension.

Moreover, if these inventions become the subject of say a court ordered injunction while investigations are ongoing, it would preclude the use of the technologies while the courts resolve these matters, similar to the recent case almost brought in the RIM/Blackberry matter. Although dwarfed in comparison, that injunction would have shut Blackberry down to users had the parties not settled the matters, by way of tremendous pressure from the Court, the courts being on of the biggest users of the technology.

The results of an injunction of the Iviewit technologies would be catastrophic to the country in that the product recall alone would be devastating to commerce, shutting down video across the Internet, recalling low bandwidth cell phones, recalling digital camera’s with digital zoom, halting the transmission of 75% of cable channels, recalling medical devices that use scaled zoom, recalling technologies on the Hubble Space Telescope and other government uses, such as flight and space simulators, advanced weapons systems, etc.

These matters are of tantamount importance to federal and international commerce in countless ways, making the job of resolving the crimes against Iviewit a matter of national security concern unprecedented in the history of invention and law.

Furthermore, initially, and early in my tenure, rumors began swirling around the company with finger pointing and all from Florida to Los Angeles wherein it caught the jet stream and arrived very soon in New York of alleged breaches of confidentiality pertaining to Iviewit technology, transfers of trade secrets, and, even in certain circumstances, the knowing and willful invention fraud by the outright switching of signature pages of patent filings by early patent counsels. Additionally, during my tenure, I was in possession of an executed patent application pertaining to Iviewit’s core imaging technology with the inventors of Bernstein and Shirajee, when, out of thin air, and just prior to filing, with no notice or authorization, such patent application witnesses the addition of a one Brian G. Utley as an inventor, and an individual who could not have been farther from the heat of the inventive stage of the imaging technology.

Still further, I submit that at the first disclosures of the inventions, patent counsel, including Kenneth Rubenstein (also sole patent evaluator and legal counsel to MPEG LA), who had spent half a lifetime attempting and failing to procure technologies for the transmission of full screen, full frame rate video across a variety of transmission networks, and who during the Iviewit disclosures had been known to state “[I] missed that,” and “[I] never thought of that,” and “[This] changes everything,” or words to those effects, Rubenstein was perhaps so fearful that Iviewit would partner with other proprietary technologies across the video value chain that it could wipe his carefully crafted patent pools off the face of the map, therefore, the Iviewit inventions HAD to be converted to MPEGLA, LLC to preserve those pools and convert his client Iviewit's technologies to his pools, of course blocking Iviewit at the same time from market using typical anti-trust tactics commonly associated with patent pools of the past and the reason the Justice Department has typically broken such pools up, as they are anti-competitive, monopolistic in nature.

That was the first step, with the second step, through the direct and indirect introductions of Iviewit, with executed confidentiality agreements (“NDA’s”), to some five hundred potential licensees by colleagues of counsel, being the proliferation of Iviewit disclosures across a wide array of potential licensees and competitors. In addition to tying and bundling the technologies into his patent pool licensing scheme, again in violation of most of the anti-trust laws.

Following along, we arrive at the point in the past when Iviewit had thought the Iviewit inventions had been filed at the United States Patent & Trademark Office and the United States Copyright Office and that everyone had begun to use it, when past management in Iviewit and patent counsel were found writing patents in patent counsels name and other non-inventor management names, in addition to the intentional unauthorized changes of inventors, owners and assignees.

Later, as Arthur Andersen conducted an audit on behalf of investor Crossbow Ventures whose funds were 2/3 Small Business Administration loans, evidence emerged of a corporate shell game involving multiple, unauthorized, similarly named corporate formations, unauthorized stock swaps and unauthorized asset transfers that resulted in the core patent applications assigned to entities that may have only one shareholder, perhaps the limited liability partnership of Proskauer Rose or other unauthorized holders, including the alleged perpetrating patent counsel, perhaps, with a view towards resurrecting the backbone technologies at some future point only converted illegally as their own.

Moreover, in a September 2006 letter to Representative Nita Lowey (D-NY 18th) I wrote that in the above series of allegations, Iviewit is confident that your Office will find a reasonable certainty that Messrs. Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. of Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Esq. of Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel and William J. Dick, Esq., Steven Becker, Esq., and Douglas Boehm, Esq. of Foley and Lardner, all Iviewit Patent Counsel and present or former members of the distinguished Bar of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, designed and executed, either for themselves or others similarly situated, the deceptions, improprieties, and, even in certain circumstances, outright misappropriation by the disingenuous redirection of the disclosed Iviewit techniques by:

(i) burying the critical elements of the inventions in patent applications filed on behalf of the true Iviewit Shareholders & Inventors; (ii) allowing the unauthorized use of Iviewit’s inventions under NDA’s without enforcement of said NDA’s; (III) filing patent applications of their own or others based on the Iviewit inventions into false inventors names and illegally set up corporations; (IV) submitting knowingly false statements and falsified documents done with intent to commit fraud on the USPTO (a federal offense), Iviewit’s shareholders, and the Iviewit Inventors. [It should be noted here that these attorneys and others are now under formal investigation by patent offices worldwide that have been ongoing for several years].

Furthermore, in that same Rep. Lowey letter, that as a result of the series of allegations enclosed, and although it is clear to Iviewit that the role of Congress is to make law not to enforce law, Iviewit finds it reasonable that your Office: (i) shall find the requisite merit to initiate Congressional investigations; (ii) shall pass these allegations to a Congressional staff attorney in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for further investigation; (iii) shall instruct said staff attorney to institute a formal Congressional investigation, including questioning, requests for records, and other information from all parties involved; (iv) shall refer said attorney’s findings back to you as a Representative in the Congress of the United States; (v) shall present such findings to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, or other appropriate committee, for determinative review; and finally (vi) shall witness said Congressional committee to urge disciplinary action against the alleged offending attorneys by the U.S. Attorney’s Office or other organization, agency, or court of appropriate jurisdiction.

Lastly, Iviewit often asks itself, among other things, “Why did the Hon. Jorge LaBarga of the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, Florida deny Iviewit’s Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Assert Counterclaim for Damages (concerning the aforementioned allegations)” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida - The Florida Bar (‘TFB’) dismiss the complaint against Christopher C. Wheeler, Esq. (‘Wheeler’ and, a non-patent attorney, a main protagonist of the above referenced allegations) despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why did the Supreme Court of Florida deny Iviewit’s Petition to begin the immediate investigation of the Wheeler complaint (when TFB admitted in writing that the answer to the Wheeler complaint was authored by an attorney, Matthew Triggs of Proskauer Rose, in flagrant violation of his public office obligations)” and

“Why did the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee stall Iviewit’s complaint against Rubenstein and Joao despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary” and “Why, despite the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department’s Court Order (unanimously voted on by five Justices) to begin the immediate investigation of Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane (former NYSBA President & Proskauer partner who handled complaints against Joao and Rubenstein while maintaining undisclosed roles at the First Department) and Joao, for conflicts and violations of New York Supreme Court public offices, did the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division Second Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee charged with conducting an immediate investigation dismiss on review the Rubenstein and Joao complaints and stating that they were ‘not under the jurisdiction’ of the First Department Court” [thus no witnesses were contacted, no evidence was tested and the attorneys did not even have to respond formally or informally to the charges against them]

and "When conflicts were discovered at the Second Department with Krane why were complaints refused by the Second Department to be formally docketed against their members caught in conflict, those members denying complaints against themselves???"

and “Why did the Virginia Bar Association dismiss the Dick complaint despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and the fact that the United States Patent Office had suspended the Iviewit patents based on a Foley and Lardner intellectual property docket submitted to the VBA that had factually false and misleading information regarding patent inventors, owners and assignees” and “Why did the Supreme Court of the United States decline to hear Iviewit’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the Florida Court’s decision, which acted to block Iviewit from filing complaints against Florida Supreme Court officers caught in conflicts of interest and violations of public offices”

and “why did John Doll & Jon Dudas, Commissioners' of Patents at the USPTO, fail to correct the inventors, and refuse to take or return Iviewit’s call or respond to formal office filings, including a petition filed more than three years ago by Iviewit and its lead investor Crossbow Ventures/SBA, which led to the suspending of patent applications pending ongoing investigations” and Iviewit finds itself answering

“THAT IT IS ALL PART AND PARCEL OF THE TOTAL DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN THE PATTERN OF FRAUDS, DECEITS, AND MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT RUN SO WIDE AND SO DEEP THAT IT TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF WHAT HAS BECOME TO BE KNOW AS FREE COMMERCE IN THIS COUNTRY, AND, IN THE FACT THAT IT PERTAINS TO INVENTORS RIGHTS, TEARS AT THE VERY FABRIC OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.”

Lastly, take to heart this following series of events that, from Tokyo to Munich and all places in between, has been commonly described as THE GREATEST PATENT STORY EVER TOLD while at the same time becoming one of the most bungled crimes in history, perhaps the largest crime ever perpetrated in the history of crime itself; crimes constituting further a treasonous series of actions to rob the United States Commerce Department, the country's greatest jewel, the United States Patent & Trademark Offices, usurping Free Commerce as we know it in America in the process!

The cover-up, well to say the least, constitutes violation after violation of sworn oaths by government officials entrusted to uphold justice, elevating perhaps throughout the Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches, creating a government of criminal activity, a "Culture of Corruption" (paralleling the reality you now live in) all to deny due process and procedure, evade prosecution of the complaints filed against them and stave off the inevitable federal prison time for their actions, as further described herein.

Read more...

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. - Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form and Hillary Clinton

The Big Money Cartel is Certainly in on this one and well as an Inventor of something they want, you lose one way or the other. This is addressed to Hillary Clinton, the Source is at the Bottom of the POST, and you will not lots of big names, big players, and even hints to secret Societies in on all this.. I mean come on just pay people for their invention and go with it.. why not share.. what is the Real Back Story to all this? Who Knows For Sure, but with the names and players rolling out, it is like another sequel to the Davinci Code....
r
Here is this Document to Hillary Rodham Clinton
r
"This Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form is designed to ensure that the review of the enclosed Bill will not be biased by any conflicting financial interest or any other interest by those reviewers responsible for the handling of this complaint with the main alleged perpetrators of the crimes cited in these matters.

Disclosure forms with "Yes" answers to either or both of the following questions are requested not to open the remainder of the document and instead forward the matters on to the next available reviewer that is free of conflict that can sign and complete the disclosure. As many of these alleged perpetrators are large law firms and perhaps officers of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies or the courts, careful review of those named herein is pertinent in your handling of these matters without cause for becoming inadvertently involved in them.

I. Do you, your spouse, and your dependents, in the aggregate have, any direct, or in any outside entity, indirect relation to the following parties to the proceeding of the matters you are reviewing:

1. Proskauer Rose, LLP

Alan S. Jaffe - Chairman Of The Board - ("Jaffe"); Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); Robert Kafin - Managing Partner - ("Kafin"); Christopher C. Wheeler - ("Wheeler"); Steven C. Krane - ("Krane"); Stephen R. Kaye - ("S. Kaye") and in his estate with New York Supreme Court Chief Judge Judith Kaye (“J. Kaye”); Matthew Triggs - ("Triggs"); Christopher Pruzaski - ("Pruzaski"); Mara Lerner Robbins - ("Robbins"); Donald Thompson - ("Thompson"); Gayle Coleman; David George; George A. Pincus; Gregg Reed; Leon Gold - ("Gold"); Albert Gortz - ("Gortz"); Marcy Hahn-Saperstein; Kevin J. Healy - ("Healy"); Stuart Kapp; Ronald F. Storette; Chris Wolf; Jill Zammas; FULL LIST OF 601 liable Proskauer Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Proskauer partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Proskauer ROSE LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Proskauer related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Proskauer").

2. MELTZER, LIPPE, GOLDSTEIN, WOLF & SCHLISSEL, P.C.

Lewis Melzter - ("Meltzer"); Raymond Joao - ("Joao"); Frank Martinez - ("Martinez"); Kenneth Rubenstein - ("Rubenstein"); FULL LIST OF 34 Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. partner, affiliate, company, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein, Wolf & Schlissel, P.C. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MLGWS").

3. FOLEY & LARDNER

Ralf Boer ("Boer"); Michael Grebe (“Grebe”); Christopher Kise (“Kise”); William J. Dick - ("Dick"); Steven C. Becker - ("Becker"); Douglas Boehm - ("Boehm"); Barry Grossman - ("Grossman"); Jim Clark - ("Clark"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Foley & Lardner partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Foley & Lardner; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Foley & Lardner related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Foley").

4. Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP

Richard Schiffrin - ("Schiffrin"); Andrew Barroway - ("Barroway"); Krishna Narine - ("Narine"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("SB").

5. Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP

Norman Zafman - ("Zafman"); Thomas Coester - ("Coester"); Farzad Ahmini - ("Ahmini"); George Hoover - ("Hoover"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("BSTZ").

6. Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP

Martyn W. Molyneaux - ("Molyneaux"); Michael Dockterman - ("Dockterman"); FULL LIST OF 198 Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP liable Partners; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon LLP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("WHAD").

7. Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.

Alan M. Weisberg - ("Weisberg"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Christopher & Weisberg, P.A.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Christopher & Weisberg, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("CW").

8. YAMAKAWA INTERNATIONAL PATENT OFFICE

Masaki Yamakawa - ("Yamakawa"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Yamakawa International Patent Office partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Yamakawa International Patent Office; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Yamakawa International Patent Office related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Yamakawa").

9. GOLDSTEIN LEWIN & CO.

Donald J. Goldstein - ("Goldstein"); Gerald R. Lewin - ("Lewin"); Erika Lewin - ("E. Lewin"); Mark R. Gold; Paul Feuerberg; Salvatore Bochicchio; Marc H. List; David A. Katzman; Robert H. Garick; Robert C. Zeigen; Marc H. List; Lawrence A. Rosenblum; David A. Katzman; Brad N. Mciver; Robert Cini; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Goldstein & Lewin Co. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Goldstein & Lewin Co.; Partners, Associates, Of Counsel, Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Goldstein & Lewin Co. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Goldstein").

10. INTEL, Real 3d, Inc. (SILICON GRAPHICS, INC., LOCKHEED MARTIN & INTEL) & RYJO

Gerald Stanley - ("Stanley"); Ryan Huisman - ("Huisman"); RYJO - ("RYJO"); Tim Connolly - ("Connolly"); Steve Cochran; David Bolton; Rosalie Bibona - ("Bibona"); Connie Martin; Richard Gentner; Steven A. Behrens; Matt Johannsen; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO; Employees, Corporations, Affiliates and any other Intel, Real 3D, Inc. (Silicon Graphics, Inc., Lockheed Martin & Intel) & RYJO related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Intel/R3D").

11. Tiedemann Investment Group

Bruce T. Prolow ("Prolow"); Carl Tiedemann ("C. Tiedemann"); Andrew Philip Chesler; Craig L. Smith; any other John Doe ("John Doe") Tiedemann Investment Group partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Tiedemann Investment Group and any other Tiedemann Investment Group related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Tiedemann").

12. Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners

Stephen J. Warner - ("Warner"); Ren P. Eichenberger - ("Eichenberger"); H. Hickman Hank Powell - ("Powell"); Maurice Buchsbaum - ("Buchsbaum"); Eric Chen - ("Chen"); Avi Hersh; Matthew Shaw - ("Shaw"); Bruce W. Shewmaker - ("Shewmaker"); Ravi M. Ugale - ("Ugale"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners and any other Crossbow Ventures / Alpine Partners related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Crossbow").

13. BROAD & CASSEL

James J. Wheeler - ("J. Wheeler"); Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Johnson"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Broad & Cassell partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Broad & Cassell and any other Broad & Cassell related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("BC").


14. FORMER IVIEWIT MANAGEMENT & BOARD
Brian G. Utley/Proskauer Referred Management - ("Utley"); Raymond Hersh - ("Hersh")/; Michael Reale - ("Reale")/Proskauer Referred Management; Rubenstein/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit - Advisory Board; Wheeler/Proskauer Rose Shareholder in Iviewit - Advisory Board; Dick/Foley & Lardner - Advisory Board, Boehm/Foley & Lardner - Advisory Board; Becker/Foley & Lardner; Advisory Board; Joao/Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel - Advisory Board; Kane/Goldman Sachs - Board Director; Lewin/Goldstein Lewin - Board Director; Ross Miller, Esq. (“Miller”), Prolow/Tiedemann Prolow II - Board Director; Powell/Crossbow Ventures/Proskauer Referred Investor - Board Director; Maurice Buchsbaum - Board Director; Stephen Warner - Board Director; Simon L. Bernstein – Board Director (“S. Bernstein”); any other John Doe ("John Doe") Former Iviewit Management & Board partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Former Iviewit Management & Board and any other Former Iviewit Management & Board related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Iviewit Executive").


15. FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA:
Judge Jorge LABARGA - ("Labarga"); any other John Doe ("John Doe") FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT - WEST PALM BEACH FLORIDA staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("15C").

16. THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE

Thomas Cahill - ("Cahill"); Joseph Wigley - ("Wigley"); Steven Krane, any other John Doe ("John Doe") of THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENTAL DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("First Dept DDC").

17. THE FLORIDA BAR

Lorraine Christine Hoffman - ("Hoffman"); Eric Turner - ("Turner"); Kenneth Marvin - ("Marvin"); Anthony Boggs - ("Boggs"); Joy A. Bartmon - ("Bartmon"); Kelly Overstreet Johnson - ("Johnson"); Jerald Beer - ("Beer"); Matthew Triggs; Christopher or James Wheeler; any other John Doe ("John Doe") The Florida Bar staff, known or not known to have been involved at the time. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("TFB")

18. MPEGLA, LLC.

Columbia University; Fujitsu Limited; General Instrument Corp; Lucent Technologies Inc.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Philips Electronics N.V. (Philips); Scientific Atlanta, Inc.; Sony Corp. (Sony); EXTENDED LIST OF MPEGLA LICENSEES AND LICENSORS; any other John Doe MPEGLA, LLC. Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") MPEGLA, LLC partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to MPEGLA, LLC and any other MPEGLA, LLC related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MPEGLA").

19. DVD6C LICENSING GROUP

Toshiba Corporation; Hitachi, Ltd.; Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. Ltd.; Mitsubishi Electric Corporation; Time Warner Inc.; Victor Company Of Japan, Ltd.; EXTENDED DVD6C DEFENDANTS; any other John Doe DVD6C LICENSING GROUP Partner, Associate, Engineer, Of Counsel or Employee; any other John Doe ("John Doe") DVD6C LICENSING GROUP partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to DVD6C LICENSING GROUP and any other DVD6C LICENSING GROUP related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("DVD6C").

20. Harrison Goodard Foote incorporating Brewer & Son.

Martyn Molyneaux, Esq. (“Molyneaux”); Any other John Doe ("John Doe") Harrison Goodard Foote (incorporating Brewer & Son) partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Harrison Goodard Goote incorporating Brewer & Son and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("HGF").

21. Lawrence DiGiovanna, Chairman of the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;

22. James E. Peltzer, Clerk of the Court of the Appellate Division, Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Judicial Department;

23. Diana Kearse, Chief Counsel to the Grievance Committee of the Second Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee;

24. Houston & ShaHady, P.A., any other John Doe ("John Doe") Houston & ShaHAdy, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Houston & ShaHAdy, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("HS").

25. Furr & Cohen, P.a. any other John Doe ("John Doe") Furr & Cohen, P.a., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Furr & Cohen, P.a. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("FC").

26. Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., any other John Doe ("John Doe") Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A., affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Moskowitz, Mandell, Salim & Simowitz, P.A. related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MMSS").

27. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Jeffrey Friedstein (“Friedstein”); Sheldon Friedstein (S. Friedstein”), Donald G. Kane (“Kane”); any other John Doe ("John Doe") The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. partners, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and any other related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("GS").

28. David b. Simon, Esq. (“D. Simon”)


29. Sachs Saxs & klein, pa any other John Doe ("John Doe") Sachs Saxs & klein, pa, affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Sachs Saxs & klein, pa related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MMSS").

30. Huizenga Holdings Incorporated any other John Doe ("John Doe") Huizenga Holdings Incorporated affiliates, companies, known or not known at this time; including but not limited to Huizenga Holdings Incorporated related or affiliated entities both individually and professionally. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("MMSS").

31. Eliot I. Bernstein, (“Bernstein”) a resident of the State of California, and former President (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its affiliates and subsidiaries and the founder of Iviewit and principal inventor of its technology. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Bernstein").

32. P. Stephen Lamont, (“Lamont”) a resident of the State of New York, and former Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and all of its affiliates and subsidiaries. Hereinafter, collectively referred to as ("Lamont").

33. SKULL AND BONES

34. Council on Foreign Relations

35. BILDERBERGERS

36. THE KNIGHTS OF THE GARTER

37. THE KNIGHTS OF MALTA

38. THE 33RD DEGREE MASONS

39. RHODES SCHOLARS

40. MULTINATIONAL CHAIRMAN’S GROUP

41. BOHEMIAN GROVE

42. TRILATERAL COMMISSION

43. LE CERCLE

44. 1001 CLUB

45. PILGRIM SOCIETY

46. SUN VALLEY MEETINGS

47. JASON GROUP

48. COUNCIL OF WORLD CHURCHES

49. WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

50. SUMMIT OF THE AMERICA’S

51. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM

52. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

53. WORLD BANK.
r

Source and Tons more to This document..

Check out the Link Below;

http://iviewit.tv/senatecultbill.htm

r

r

Read more...

REBUTTAL OF IVIEWIT TO THE New York State BAR

"REBUTTAL OF IVIEWIT TO THE NEW YORK STATE BAR OF
RESPONSE OF KENNETH RUBENSTEIN AUTHORED BY STEVEN KRANE"


P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
July 2, 2003

Re: Rebuttal of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Response
to Complaint of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., Docket 2003.0531

Dear Mr. Cahill:
By way of introduction, I am Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Company”) with a background of which the Company
invites you to view at http://www.iviewit.com/management.htm , and I write to rebutt all
those material feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of Kenneth
Rubenstein, Esq. (“Respondent”) to the Company’s New York Bar Complaint of
February 26 (“Complaint”).

Moreover, the facts of the Complaint find Respondent so uncloaked that he resorts to
disingenuously traversing from tall tales of retaliation to some irrelevant litigation, to
stories of a “failed dotcom company looking for someone to blame,” and even to the
personal attacks on the founder and principal inventor of the Company, whose passion for
his inventions confounds the mind of Respondent whose personal, financial, and other
ambitions rise above all, to the detriment of his clients.

Furthermore, Respondent continues this transparent discourse and all the while maintaining “The only thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer,”1 which the Company shall incite in the minds of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee that such a statement by Respondent could not be farther from the truth, as evidenced by Section I to Section XII, infra.

Prior to Section I to Section XII, infra, however, the first feint we need to address, and as
Respondent has chosen to apprise you, is that the Company and Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), are parties to that certain litigation titled Proskauer
Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001)
(“Litigation”) that, as Respondent is aware, yet prefaces and attributes the Complaint to
said Litigation, bears not one iota of relevance to the specific allegations contained in the
Company’s Complaint.

Second, another important feint to correct, and wherein Respondent hopes that First
Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee fails to see the forest from the trees, is that the Company is not now nor has ever been a so called “dotcom” company, but rather is a designer and developer of video scaling and imaging technologies where, in combination and among other things, said technologies have the capability of “panning and zooming” on any image or any image within a video without degradation to the quality of that image (where degradation is termed “pixelation” to those skilled in the art).

Additionally, the Company technologies are targeted to device original equipment
manufacturers (“OEMs”) who, when individually, or in combination with other third
party hardware, firmware, and/or software, shall include them in OEM products such as,
but not limited to, cable set top boxes, satellite set top boxes, analog-to-digital converter
boxes, next generation DVD players, digital cameras, personal video recorders, and
personal computers; alternatively the Company has the option of exclusively contributing
said essential technologies to the multimedia patent pools known as MPEG 2 (digital
compression according the digital television standard), MPEG 4 (another compression
standard at a lower bit rate, and wherein interactive objects may be embedded), and DVD
(“digital video disc”) player-drive-codec and the discs themselves.

Third, and most disingenuously, Respondent attempts to point to the two and one half
percent (2.5%) interest in, an interest that Proskauer paid a nominal, par value price for,
and that was supposedly in return for adoption by the MPEG 2 patent pool of the
Company’s essential inventions, the Company’s direct, 92.03% owned, subsidiary,
Iviewit Technologies, Inc., that more specifically translates into a one and ninety nine one
hundredths of a percent (1.99%) fully diluted interest in lower valued Class B Non-
Voting shares of the Company’s direct subsidiary, as a motivation for Proskauer Rose to see
the Company succeed, yet fails to apprise First Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee that in Respondent’s stewardship of the MPEG 2 patent pool,
which presently generates royalties in the nine figures, according to industry observers,
and that once digital television and the content there with assumes a penetration rate in
U.S. households akin to analog color television that said royalties from MPEG 2 shall rise
into the trillions of dollars, and much to the benefit of Respondent in his role as counsel,
by his admission2, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator, and
Proskauer Rose, thereby dwarfing any potential realized gain from the nominally priced equity position in the Company’s direct subsidiary.

Clearly, by this analysis, the Company suggests that Respondent and his author, Steven C. Krane (“Author”), continue to apply their skills sets towards, physics and technology licensing, and legal ethics and dispute resolution, respectively, as their prospects of future careers as financial analysts have diminished as a result of this poorly attempted feint in the response of Respondent.

Fourth, and an equally poorly analyzed feint, is Respondent’s reference to a letter
presented in his deposition to that certain Litigation on November 20, 2002, wherein such
Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes,
seemingly attempting to engage Respondent’s services future services, but by viewing an
electronic copy and right clicking the mouse of a IBM compatible personal computer and
selecting “properties” it is clear to Respondent that said letter’s date of creation was April
25, 2002, which was designed as a means for which to allow Respondent to “save his
soul” by reaffirming prior statements to potential licensees, and inapposite to
Respondent’s assumed intention (see Section IX Subsection A and Exhibit O – Statement
of CEO Lamont).

Lastly, Mr. Thomas Cahill, and as Respondent would have you believe, this is NOT the
Complaint of Eliot I. Bernstein, but of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation)
funded in total of approximately Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) by prominent investors and entertainment professionals alike, including, but not limited to: Wayne Huizenga, Wayne Huizenga Jr., Alan Epstein, Esq. and Michele Mulrooney, Esq. of Armstrong
Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer of Los Angeles. Cal., Kenneth Anderson, CPA,
Donald Kane (formerly Managing Director of Goldman Sachs), James Osterling, James
Armstrong, Ellen DeGenres, Alan Young, Allan Shapiro (Atlas Entertainment), Mitchell
Welsch (Vice President of UBS Paine Webber), and Jeffrey Friedstein (Vice President of
Goldman Sachs), Caroline P. Rogers, Esq. and many others.

Furthermore, the allegations in the Complaint stem from legal reviews by Irell and
Manella of Beverly Hills, Cal, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP of Los Angeles,
Cal., Caroline P. Rogers, Esq., the Chicago office of Greenberg Traurig LLP, Steven M.
Selz, Esq., and by executives of Warner Bros., a unit of AOL Time Warner, Inc., who in
the course of discussion both at the business level and personal level have advised that
looks can be deceiving when viewing the Company’s patent applications filed by patent
counsel under the supervision of Respondent, as the filings they viewed differ materially,
and, perhaps, fraudulently, the Company alleges, from the teachings and disclosures of
the Company’s inventors, Mr. Bernstein, Zakirul Shirajee, and Jude Rosario, and to the
detriment of the Company’s filings.

Now, with the above clarified, the Company points straight to the heart of the matters,
and despite Respondent’s statements in his deposition, wherein such Litigation is wholly
irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, and laughable
statements at that, the Company alleges, that include but are not limited to, “The only
thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer” and “I consider the deposition nothing but harassment, considering that I had nothing to do with the
company3,” and his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to the
Company’s technologies, we summarily state that from the benefit of the narrative and
attached exhibits below, the Company shall incite in the minds of First Judicial
Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee that Respondent:

(I) engaged in a series of dishonesties, appearances of untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation with, and as the supervising attorney of, one
Raymond A. Joao who at the time of Respondent’s referral was in transition from places
unknown, but later figuratively drops out of the sky, while misrepresented as a member
of Proskauer Rose, and as of February 1999, becomes of counsel to Meltzer, Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel LLP (“MLGS”), Respondent’s former employer, in an attempt to bury the
Company’s inventions that are a competitive threat to the multimedia patent pools of
which Respondent holds the position of counsel, by self admission, and, to the best of the
Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator;

(II) engaged in a series of improprieties and deceptions with a one Christopher C. Wheeler, a Partner in the Boca Raton office of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”) in a further attempt to deprive the Company of its technologies for the benefit of Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer by directing Mr. Christopher Wheeler to proliferate the Company’s technologies across a wide array of clients of Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer, according to Non-Disclosure Agreements (“NDAs”) never enforced by Mr. Wheeler, and a true list of clients conducting said unauthorized use is attached herein as Exhibit D;

(III) by virtue of his actions in (I) thereby perpetrating a fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in the supervision of Mr. Joao; and (IV) by virtue of (I) through (III) all to the detriment of the patent filings and present fortunes of the Company and its stakeholders alike.

Accordingly, on behalf of the Company, and for ease of reference I insert the major
allegations of the Complaint within the framework of The Lawyer’s Code of Professional
Responsibility of the New York State Bar Association,8 cross referencing Title 22 of New
York Codes, Rules and Regulations9 (“NYCRR”), and shall cite specific documentation
in exhibits attached hereto:

I. DR 1-102 [§1200.3] Misconduct.

The Company rebuts the feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of
Respondent and re-alleges that Respondent had, during the period of representation of the
Company from 1998 to mid 2001, and irrespective of at which date, and in which form,
an engagement agreement was executed by and between Proskauer Rose and the Company: (I)
engaged in illegal conduct that adversely reflected on Respondent’s honesty, trustworthiness, and fitness as an attorney; (II) circumvented a Disciplinary Rule through actions of another, Mr. Joao; (III) engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; and (IV) engaged in other conduct that adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer.

Additionally, the Company, interalia, shall establish: (I) that Respondent, as the first
technologist to benefit from the inventions disclosures by the Company, was seen by the
inventors, executive management, investors, and potential licensees, as the individual
responsible for the oversight of the Company’s patent prosecution process;

(II) that Respondent used the referral of Mr. Raymond Joao as the cloaking device to bury the Company’s inventions that are competitive threats to the multimedia patent pools, thereby
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the
multimedia patent pools where Respondent, by admission, holds the position as counsel,
and also, to the Company’s best knowledge, patent evaluator;

(III) that Respondent opined as to the novelty of the Company’s inventions to investors and potential licensees at the same time he was directing Mr. Raymond Joao to bury the Company’s inventions in provisional patent filings that are a competitive threat to his patent pools and directing Mr. Christopher Wheeler to proliferate the Company’s technologies among clients of Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer without the enforcement of NDAs; and (IV) that Respondent engaged in other conduct that adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer by his unconscionable speaking of falsehoods in a recent deposition in the Litigation, wherein such litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, in which he denies, interalia:

(a) knowledge of the Company, however, has been named as overseer of the Company’s patent prosecution process and has been named as a member of the Company’s Advisory Board and has opined as to the novelty of the Company’s inventions to investors and potential licensees alike;

(b) denies knowledge of the Company’s main inventor, Mr. Bernstein, and other inventors, although he has spent many hours in disclosure sessions with the Company’s inventors; and

(c) has refused to describe his involvement with the organization MPEG LA, LCC that through
doctrines of respondeat superior and vicarious liability may be liable for the actions of
Respondent in other forums separate and apart from the Complaint, and where said
speaking of falsehoods in (a) through (c) has been steadfastly repeated in Respondent’s
response to the Complaint.

A. More specifically, Respondent, when first apprised of the Company’s technologies
states, through Mr. Wheeler, the opinion that they are “novel” and a statement relied
upon by early investors in the Company.

Moreover, through and in conjunction with Mr. Wheeler, Respondent becomes fully aware of the Company’s inventions whereby he receives invention processes, visits the proprietary pages of the Company’s web site, receives proprietary and confidential CD-ROM’s, is, factually, in constant phone contact with the Company’s inventors to learn the Company’s techniques, often times with Mr. Joao, and transmits examples of patents to Mr. Bernstein that point to the patent prosecution process he intends to oversee and undertake in conjunction with Mr. Joao, attached herein as Exhibit E.

Moreover, once knowledgeable about the Company’s inventions and in disclosure
teleconferences with Mr. Bernstein, the Company finds Respondent muttering to himself
“I missed that” and “we never thought of that” and “THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING.”

Furthermore, when Respondent’s muttering of “I missed that” and
“we never thought of that,” the Company alleges that Respondent is incensed at the
thought of a self taught video engineer, the likes of Mr. Bernstein and his fellow
inventors, formulating video and imaging processes that trump the preeminent patent
pools formed by Respondent, the patents of which were evaluated by Respondent, the
organization of which is counseled by Respondent, and the licensee and licensor list of
which Respondent counts as some of his clients as described at the URL at
http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/4747 , where his client list includes some of those companies listed in the MPEG 2 patent pool, and highlighted as attached herein as Exhibit F.

Furthermore, Respondent is seen pointed to by former company executive management,
and named in multiple Company business plans authored by and reviewed and billed for
by Mr. Wheeler and delivered to Respondent’s for his review, and by potential license
partners as the “go to” individual regarding information and opinions on the Company’s
inventions examples of which are attached herein as Exhibit G.

B. More importantly, the Company points to his alleged mutterings that “THIS
CHANGES EVERYTHING,” wherein “EVERYTHING” allegedly refers to
Respondent’s formation, patent evaluation, and counseling to the organization MPEG
LA, LLC that coordinates the MPEG 2 and MPEG 4 patent pools of which the
Company’s inventions are a competitive threat.

Factually, the Company has knowledge that, as well as Respondent holding the position
of counsel by his own admission, Respondent holds the position of patent evaluator, and
wherein Respondent:

(a) may personally profit as said patent evaluator by, to the best of
the Company’s knowledge, receiving a fee of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars
($8,500) per patent review10; (b) wherein Mr. Rubenstein counts as among his clients
certain licensors and licensees of said patent pools, and receives remuneration as the
billing Partner in representation of those clients by Respondent and Proskauer Rose; and (c)
wherein it is in the best personal, financial interest of Respondent to direct and engage
with Mr. Joao and Mr. Wheeler in said series of dishonesties, appearances of
untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation to
remove the competitive threat of the Company’s inventions to said multimedia patent
pools, thereby securing his own personal gain and, perhaps, that of Proskauer.

Lastly, given this time line of events concerning Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, it becomes strikingly unusual that Respondent and other former members and
associates of MLGS who at the time just transferred with Respondent to Proskauer, pass
on the patent prosecution work of the Company for their new employer, Proskauer Rose, and
10 First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should be apprised of the fact that: (i) said patent pool known as MPEG 2 contains, as of even date above, approximately Five Hundred and Eighty (580) essential patents, and contains some eighty to ninety percent (80% to 90%), according to industry observers, of the essential patents relevant to this pool; (ii) that said patent pool known as DVD contains, as of even date above, approximately Six Hundred and Seventy Five (675) essential patents, and the Company has no knowledge as to what percentage of the essential patents are contained relevant to this pool; and (iii) that said patent pool known as MPEG 4 presently contains approximately One Hundred (100) essential patents, and by the Company’s estimation contains approximately twenty five percent (25%) of the essential patents relevant to this pool; (iv) that by virtue of (i) and (ii) herein,

Respondent may have personally profited, absent any sharing with his former or present employers or in the operating budget of MPEG LA, LLC, in the amount of approximately Five Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,700,000); and (v) that by virtue of (iii) herein, Respondent may stand, from this activity alone, to personally profit in the future, absent any sharing with his present employer or the operating budget of MPEG LA, LLC, of approximately Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), as well as profiting, the Company alleges, in other ways from the burying of the Company’s technologies, or resurrecting them with a cumulative present value of up to Seventeen Billion Dollars ($17,000,000,000) over twenty (20) year patent life.

Refer it back to their former law firm, MLGS, and an attorney, in one Mr. Joao, who
seemingly drops out of the sky and has no connection to the former attorneys, or do
Respondent and Mr. Raymond A. Joao have a former connection?

Moreover, and at this point in the time line, Respondent has already opined that the Company’s inventions are “novel” and essential to MPEG, as well as, in the Company’s opinion, a competitive threat to MPEG, which lends great support to the Company’s contenti ons that Respondent saw the personal financial gains, esteem, and current and prospective clients from the multimedia patent pools as needs to bury the Company’s inventions.

Finally, it is proximate to this series of events and circumstances that the Company realleges
that Respondent, desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal, financial gains,
esteem, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist,
the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, engaged, with and while
acting as the overseer of Mr. Joao, in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and
misrepresentation, wherein Respondent who has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions by missing critical elements
in the provisional patent applications, as attached herein as Exhibit H; Mr. Bernstein, the
other inventors, former President & COO Brian G. Utley , and representatives of the
“seed” investor, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc. find:

(I) flaws in patent applications; (II) material differences between what was disclosed and contained in filed patent applications, as further described in Exhibit H by the letter of Mr. Utley; and (III) patent applications that do not include all the inventors.

C. Still further, the opinions of Respondent are instrumental in the “seed” funding of the
Company by an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc. (Wayne Huizenga of Blockbuster
fame) wherein Respondent interfaces with the Huizenga investment professionals, and
Mr. Wheeler reiterates Respondent’s opinions regarding the Company’s inventions.
Similarly, Mr. Wheeler relays Respondent’s opinions to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,
Gruntal & Co. (presently a unit of Raymond James Financial Inc.), and a whole host of
other investors and potential license partners now conducting the unauthorized use of the
Company technologies under NDAs not enforced by Respondent and Mr. Wheeler.

Lastly, to investors in the Company, it was the representation of Respondent and Mr.
Wheeler that Respondent’s patent pools and other interested clients of Respondent and
Mr. Wheeler would license the Company’s technologies; it was also represented that
Respondent made positive decisions on the essentiality of the Company’s patents pending
to potential licensees of the Company, in particular with respect to Warner Bros., and his
close association with a one Gregory B. Thagard, an individual who is the named, or one
of the named inventor(s) for approximately thirteen patents in the DVD patent pool and
was associated with Respondent in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Media
Lab; instances of investor and licensee representations are more particularly described by
Exhibit I.

D. Lastly, through his many denials and, factual outright disavowing numerous items in
his deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevant
to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes,

Respondent outright disavows:

1. any knowledge whatsoever of the Company;

2. any knowledge whatsoever of Mr. Bernstein and the other true inventors;

3. any knowledge whatsoever of techniques known as pan and zoom technology;

4. and through his refusal to answer questions regarding the allegedly vicariously
liable MPEG LA, LLC16 amongst others;

5. his charge that the deposition was harassment in that he had nothing to do with
the Company;

6. his steadfast denial of technology known as scaled video;

7. his claim as to never opining on the Company’s technology;

8. his denial of ever having been involved in meetings concerning the Company

9. his denial of ever having any discussion with anyone at Proskauer concerning the
Company’s technology;

10. his admission of not keeping notes or records of his conversations to Mr.
Wheeler.

11. his acknowledgement of never having billed the Company, though his name
appears more than a dozen times, absent those billings that may have purposely
removed, in billings from Mr. Wheeler’s office.

12. his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to the
Company’s technologies;. his stunning reversal of his possible conversation with third parties regarding the Company’s technologies;25 and,his lack of knowledge as to why his name appears in an electronic mail message to a member of AOL Time Warner’s investment team, wherein that message states that Respondent opined on the Company’s technologies.

Accordingly, by subparagraphs 1 to 14 above, Respondent has engaged in other conduct
that adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer, in light of said denials of
which the Company shall conclusively prove otherwise, infra.

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

A. The Company realleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-alleges
that Respondent who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains,
esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from
representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the
multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the
burying the Company’s inventions, possessed knowledge of a violation of DR 1-102
[§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of Mr. Joao, Mr. Joao’s
trustworthiness, Mr. Joao’s fitness as a lawyer, whom Respondent has recruited to assist,
the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention, whereby Respondent
failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate
or act upon such violation.

Still further, and by Exhibit I, the Company alleges Respondent’s awareness of violations
of Mr. Joao during a meeting at Respondent’s New York office with a one Steven
Filipeck, Esq. representing Huizenga Holdings, as well as others, pertaining to the
Company’s patent filings, and based on Mr. Filipeck’s review of Mr. Joao’s, under the
direction of Respondent, provisional work; Huizenga Holdings, Inc. was the initial
investor in the Company and this meeting materially impacts future Huizenga
investments which, as a result of the faulty provisional patent applications, were never
forthcoming.

Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violation of
DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of a one William
J. Dick, Esq. of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, Wis. and Mr. Utley, whereby Respondent
similarly failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to
investigate or act upon such violation.

Still further, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violation
of DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of Mr. Wheeler,
whereby Respondent similarly failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other
authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

Lastly, the Company further alleges that Respondent may have had knowledge of factors
that may raise a substantial question as to the honesty of a one H. Hickman Powell III and
Stephen J. Warner, Managing Director and Co-Founder and Chairman, respectively, of
one Crossbow Ventures, Inc. of West Palm Beach, Fla., an affiliate of which was the
Company’s lead investor, whereby Respondent similarly failed to report such knowledge
to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.
Moreover, with respect to Messrs.

Powell and Warner and Crossbow, in late 1999, they were introduced to the Company by Mr. Wheeler, who had indicated to the Company that they were interested in an equity investment in the Company once they had conducted a thorough due diligence review of the Company’s intellectual property and provisional patent filings with a independent third party patent counsel, and in conjunction with Respondent and Mr. Joao.

Clearly, as Crossbow proceeded to invest a total of Four Million Dollars consisting of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000) in convertible preferred stock (January 2000), One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000) in unsecured notes (December 2000), and Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($800,000) in secured notes27 (May to September 2001) in the Company, said independent intellectual property review passed with flying colors, but what strikes the Company as unusual is that the independent intellectual property review by Crossbow in conjunction with Respondent and Mr. Joao, is in diametric opposition to the review of Foley & Lardner, and in diametric opposition to the review of the Company’s present patent prosecution counsel of Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP of Los Angeles,
Cal., and lastly, is in diametric opposition to the review of the Company’s latest patent
review counsel, the Chicago office of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Finally, following the time line of events, the termination of Mr. Utley for cause follows
with a breach of contract action (since dismissed) by, among others, Mr. Utley, followed
by Mr. Utley’s petition in an involuntary bankruptcy (since dismissed) against the
Company, followed by the Litigation (pending) by and between the Company and
Proskauer, wherein such litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive
for these purposes, followed by the execution of Crossbow’s secured notes collateralized
by the Company’s intellectual property, followed by the halting of funding by Crossbow
Ventures that was far lower than the committed amount for that round, followed by a
demand letter for accrued but unpaid interest by Crossbow Ventures to the Company,
followed by a default notice and demand for all principal and accrued but unpaid interest
under the secured notes by Crossbow Ventures to the Company, and followed by a notice
of assignment of the intellectual property of the Company by Crossbow Ventures
(presently the subject of dispute), followed by a transfer of the secured notes contrary to
the rules of the Securities Act of 1933, to the best of the Company’s knowledge
(presently, the subject of a complaint to the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission), followed by Crossbow’s false statements to The Palm Beach Post that
“[Crossbow]sold one of its companies, iviewit.com,28” and the Company finds itself
asking:

Are not all these individuals and entities the referrals of Proskauer, Mr. Wheeler,
and Respondent, and introduced after Respondent has been apprised of the
Company inventions, and declaring them as ‘novel,’ and that ‘[Respondent]
missed that,’ and that ‘[Respondent] never thought of that,’ and, lastly
Respondent’s statement that ‘this changes everything,’ and whereby the efforts of
a preeminent multimedia patent counsel, such as Respondent or another, who is
desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients
from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, may be of utilization
later after the above said series of events rendered the Company, its inventors, the
predominance of its shareholders, absent Mr. Utley and Crossbow and Proskauer,
neutralized, in the resurrection of the Company’s inventions for the benefit of
Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, Proskauer, Mr. Powell, Mr. Warner, Crossbow, and
Mr. Utley?

(Check Out Page 44 the Link Below for this Picture of Connections)

B. Similarly, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the multimedia patent
pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the
Company’s inventions possessed knowledge or evidence, not protected as a confidence or
secret, concerning Mr. Joao, without revealing such knowledge or evidence to the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other authorities empowered to
investigate or act upon the irresponsible conduct of Mr. Joao.

C. Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violation
of DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of ones Steven
Becker and Douglas Boehm of Foley & Lardner and, whereby Respondent similarly
failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate
or act upon such violation.

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

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, and Section II Subsection A-C, inclusive. More
specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the multimedia patent
pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the
Company’s inventions, is responsible for a violation of the Disciplinary Rules by Mr.
Joao whereby:

(I) Respondent ordered and directed the irresponsible misconduct of Mr. Joao in burying the Company’s technologies, and, with full knowledge of Mr. Joao’s specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct; (II) Respondent ordered and directed, in conjunction with Mr. Wheeler, the irresponsible misconduct of subsequent patent counsel Mr. Dick, a one Steven Becker, a one Douglas Boehm all of Foley & Lardner, and Mr. Utley in continuing to bury the Company’s technologies, and, with full knowledge of their specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct; and (III) Respondent had supervisory authority over these individuals and knew of such misconduct that Respondent, ordered, directed, and ratified, and in the exercise of reasonable management and supervisory authority where Respondent knowing of said misconduct failed to take remedial action at a time when the consequences of their misconduct could be or could have been avoided
or mitigated.

B. Lastly, and aside from the fact that Respondent ordered and directed the irresponsible
misconduct of Mr. Joao in burying the Company’s technologies, and, with full
knowledge of Mr. Joao’s specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct, Respondent was
negligible in the referral to Mr. Joao in that Mr. Joao presently has numerous patents
issued and patent applications pending since meeting the inventors, nearly eighty (80) in
total, and where these inventions concern those allegedly learned through his engagement
with the Company, the royalties, if measured along the lines of the MPEG 2 patent pool,
can represent upwards of, if not more than, Twelve Million Dollars ($12,000,000) per
annum; similarly,

Respondent was negligent in Proskauer’s referral of Foley & Lardner,
whereby the lead counsel to the Company, Mr. William J. Dick,was previously involved in alleged intellectual property malfeasances with Mr. Utley, and considering the particular patent applications wrongly written into Mr. Utley as the sole inventor, and sent to Mr. Utley’s home, and without Mr. Utley assigning said inventions to the Company, and where Foley & Lardner had full knowledge of Mr. Utley’s inability to invent said technologies, the
royalties flowing from these nearly misappropriated inventions might approach more than
One Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000) annually.

IV. DR 1-107 [1200.5-c]
Contractual Relationships Between Lawyers and
Nonlegal Professionals
A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, and Section III Subsection
A, inclusive.

Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent’s practice of
law during his representation of the Company lacked the essential tradition of complete
independence and uncompromised loyalty to the Company as a result of Respondent’s
representation as counsel and, to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator,
to the entity known as MPEG LA, LLC, or the licensor of those essential patents known
as MPEG 2 and MPEG 4, the DVD patent pool administered by DVD 6C Licensing
Agency, that the Company’s technologies provide for a competitive threat, as evidenced
by Exhibit J attached herein, and other clients, wherein Respondent refuses to answer
questions in his deposition with regard to the Litigation30, wherein such Litigation is
wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, concerning
questions pertaining to MPEG LA, LLC, as, the Company alleges, Respondent is fully
aware that the misconduct of Mr. Joao as overseen by Respondent, would rise to the level
of MPEG LA, LLC through doctrines of respondeat superior and vicarious liability,
thereby impinging upon Respondent’s personal financial gains whereby Respondent,
who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable
gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be
trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and
has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions ..

B. Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent’s representation of the Company
lacked the tradition of complete independence and uncompromised loyalty as outlined in
this Section, Subsection A, as a result of Respondent’s simultaneous representation of
MPEG LA, LLC as well as other clients possessing overlapping interests with respect to
the Company, the Company lacked the guarantee of independent professional judgment
and undivided loyalty uncompromised by conflicts of interest in its representation by
Respondent when viewing the Company’s technologies as competitive threats to those
technologies licensed by MPEG LA, LLC and Respondent’s personal financial gains as
its counsel, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator.

Lastly, as a result of this Section Subsections A and B, the Company re-alleges that
Respondent failed: (I) in his responsibility to maintain his or own independent
professional judgment; (II) to maintain the confidences and secrets of the Company; and
(III) to otherwise comply with the legal and ethical principles governing lawyers in New
York State.

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

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
and Section IV Subsection A-C, inclusive.

Wherein, “confidence” refers to information protected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and “secret” refers to other information gained in the professional relationship that the Company had requested be held inviolate and the disclosure of which would likely be detrimental to the Company, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent (I) used the confidences and trade secrets of the Company to the disadvantage of the Company; (II) revealed, by using for Respondent’s own gain, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and
clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, confidences and trade secrets
of the Company, to the disadvantage of the Company; and (III) Respondent failed to
exercise reasonable care to prevent his clients from disclosing and using the confidences
and trade secrets of the Company.

More specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent revealed confidences and
trade secrets of the Company to the disadvantage of the Company as evidenced by the
billings of Proskauer wherein Respondent is named numerous times and has participated
in numerous hours of billings by Proskauer, attached herein as Exhibit K.

Furthermore, in his response, Respondent points to the fact that he has not billed for one hour of work in representation of the Company, whereby by Exhibit K, the Company finds itself asking
“Does Respondent work for free?” and answers by replying “No, but only when
Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains,
esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from
representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the
multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the
burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently,
see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, as
a means to cloak his involvement in the burying of the Company’s inventions.”

Moreover, it should be similarly noted with respect to the billings of Proskauer that the
Company further alleges that Proskauer’s early bills bear eerie evidence of possible
tampering, and wherein Respondent’s name and patent discussion entries may have been
attempted to be removed in an effort to exculpate Respondent.

Furthermore, the Company re-alleges that Respondent revealed, by using for
Respondent’s own gain, confidences and trade secrets of the Company, to the
disadvantage of the Company according to the same analysis in this Section, Subsection A.

B. Lastly, the Company re-alleges that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care to
prevent his clients from disclosing and using the confidences and trade secrets of the
Company as evidenced by the URL at http://trailers.warnerbros.com/web/category.jsp?id=action, whereby on the website of Warner Bros, a client of Respondent as evidenced by Mr. Wheeler’s second response32 to the Company’s Complaint against Mr. Wheeler, a viewer who selects an action trailer and choosing Windows Media Player at a connection speed of 300k and when observing the trailer and right clicking the viewer’s personal computer mouse and choosing the option “statistics” and then choosing the option ”advanced,” the quality of video seen at the specified bit rate and connection speed that deliver twenty
(24) to thirty (30) full screen frames per second (termed “full frame rates” to those skilled
in the art) is mathematically impossible to deliver other than by use of the Company’s
inventions, as corroborated by the letter of David Colter, former Vice President of
Advanced Technology of Warner Bros., and all attached herein as Exhibit L.

VI. DR 5-101 [§1200.20]
Conflicts of Interest - Lawyer’s Own Interests

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, and Section V Subsection A-D, inclusive.

Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG
2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the

Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the
matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying
the Company itself, continued his employment by MPEG LA, LLC, and whereby said
employment materially affected Respondent’s judgment to the detriment of the Company
as a result of Respondent’s own financial, business, property, and personal interests, and
whereby the Company gave no consent to the representation in light of the implications
of the Respondent’s interest.

Furthermore, by this violation of DR 5-101, it becomes more apparent when viewed in
terms of that neither Respondent nor Mr. Wheeler33 are cognizant of whether Proskauer
conducted a no conflict of interest verification. Still further, the Company further alleges
that Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr. Joao were in receipt of proprietary and
confidential Company information without the benefit of a retainer agreement34 or no
conflict of interest verification, and whereby a no conflict of interest verification was
conducted approximately twelve months after the first technology disclosures by the
Company to Mr. Wheeler, Respondent, and Mr. Joao, as described in Exhibit F, supra.

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

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
inclusive. Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.
Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, failed to decline the
continued proffered employment by MPEG LA, LLC and his other clients, and that as a
result of Respondent’s failure to decline said employment, Respondent’s exercise of
independent professional judgment on behalf of the Company was adversely affected by
Respondent’s continuation of said proffered employment by, including but not limited to,
MPEG LA, LLC, and that it was likely to involve Respondent in representing differing
interests.

B. Furthermore, the Company re-alleges that Respondent continued the said multiple
employment by both, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC and the Company
when Respondent’s exercise of independent professional judgment on behalf of the
Company was adversely affected by the Respondent’s representation of, including but not
limited to, MPEG LA, LLC, and that it resulted in Respondent representing differing
interests with material conflicts across his client roster, Proskauer’s clients under NDA,
the multimedia patent pools in general, and MPEG 2 in particular, that has a potential to
generate royalties in the trillions of dollars at the time in which digital television is the
quintessential entertainment client in end users viewing areas.

Moreover, Respondent, in his deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, states his inability to recall his financial package35 as well as his date of employment with Proskauer Rose, which, the Company alleges, reveals Respondent’s motives, when viewed in terms of his desire to maintain Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s
employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions and perhaps the
facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing
for burying the Company itself, and as evidenced by Exhibit M attached herein.

Additionally, also presented in Exhibit M are: (I) a compact disc recording of a taped
conversation by and between Mr. Eliot Bernstein and inventor Shirajee that points to the
absolute knowledge by Respondent, Mr. Joao, and Mr. Wheeler as to the Company’s true
inventors; (II) the statement of former Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors,
Simon Bernstein; and (III) the statements of other former employees, shareholders,
investors and clients all possessing knowledge of the alleged malfeasances and
misfeasances of Respondent, Mr. Joao, and Mr. Wheeler.

The Company re-alleges that Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, failed to maintain
records of Respondent’s outside interests with, including but not limited to, MPEG LA,
LLC, and similarly failed to implement a system by which the proposed engagement with
the Company was checked against Respondent’s employment by, including but not
limited to, MPEG LA, LLC, and whereby the case of representation of the Company was
a substantial factor in causing a violation of DR 5-105 by Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.
Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself.

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

The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
and Section VII Subsection A-C, inclusive.

Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent, after the representation of the Company continued to represent, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC in the same and substantially related matter in which Respondent’s and Proskauer’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the Company, as Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself

A. The Company re-alleges that Respondent used the confidences and trade secrets of
the Company to the detriment of the Company.

B. The Company re-alleges that without the consent of the Company, Respondent
knowingly continued to represent, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC in the
same and substantially related matters in which Respondent had previously represented
the Company and: (I) Respondent’s interests and the interests of Proskauer are materially
adverse to the Company; and (II) Respondent had acquired information protected by
section DR 4-101 [1200.19](B) that is material to the matter.

IX. DR 7-101 [§1200.32]
Representing a Client Zealously.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
Section VII Subsection A-C, and Section VIII Subsection A-C, inclusive. Furthermore,
Company re-alleges that Respondent intentionally failed to seek the lawful objectives of
the Company through reasonably available means permitted by law and the Disciplinary
Rules.

More specifically, the representation by Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining
Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG
2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the
matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying
the Company itself, in his role as overseer of the Company’s patent prosecution process,
is aware that his direction of Mr. Joao has the stated goal of filing the provisional patent
application for the Company’s imaging invention by January 1999, and a goal not
fulfilled until more than three months later, and wherein all disclosures had occurred
while the Respondent and Mr. Wheeler, under the umbrella of Proskauer, had neither
executed a retainer agreement with the Company nor conducted conflict checks, but only
approximately twelve months after the Company’s technology disclosures, all conduct of
which reflects negatively on Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer.

Moreover, Respondent erroneously claims that foreigners could not be listed as inventors
in diametric opposition to Section 115 of the Patent Act38, a true copy of which is
attached herein as Exhibit N, which, according to the Company’s best understanding may
invalidate any patents at issuance; thereafter, Mr. Wheeler expedites, and bills for such,
the immigration status of Mr. Shirajee and Mr. Rosario so that they may be listed as
inventors; still at this point, Mr. Joao, under the direction of Respondent, fails to state
proper inventors.

Still further, the Company required Respondent’s participation, and wherein Respondent
willfully failed to participate, by teleconference during its first major technology
disclosure with Real 3D, Inc. (then a consortium of Intel Corp., Silicon Graphics, Inc.,
and Lockheed Martin Corp), during which time it was found that Mr. Joao, under the
direction of Respondent, protected only the imaging invention, and wherein the Company
cannot make full disclosures of the video invention and the combination of imaging and
scaled video where, Mr. Wheeler, after the meeting, calls Respondent who opines that no
damage may result from the late filings as the protection of the inventions rest on the date
of invention and not the filing dates; unfortunately, Respondent was remiss in failing to
state that the international patent system relies on a “first to file” basis, rather than his
stated invention date instructions, and thus potentially exposes the Company’s
international patent portfolio based on the late filings of imaging, video scaling, and the
combination of imaging and scaled video.

B. Still further, the Company references the removal of Mr. Raymond Joao as the Company patent prosecutor, under the direction of Respondent, and his replacement by Foley & Lardner,
specifically referred by Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Utley, and still under the direction of

Respondent. The Company further alleges that Respondent is negligent in the oversight
of Foley & Lardner’s work as they fail to: (a) correct the mistakes of Mr. Joao, pursue
non-provisional patent prosecution for the Company that results in flawed work of their
own, still under the direction of Respondent, and when corrected by the Company, still
file non-provisional patent applications filled with flaws; (b) file non-provisional patent
applications with missing and changed inventors; (c) write non-provisional patent
applications into the name of the Company’s President & Chief Operating Officer, a one
Brian G. Utley, with no assignment to the Company, and an individual who had a close
association with the Foley & Lardner lead, William J. Dick, with full knowledge that Brian Utley
could not and was not inventor of the subject matter of those non-provisional
applications; and (d) failed to disclose the former intellectual property malfeasances of
Mr. Utley and Mr. Dick at Mr. Utley’s former employer, Diamond Turf Lawnmower in
Florida.

B. Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent tortuously interfered with a
business contract by and between the Company and Warner Bros, wherein a one Wayne
M. Smith, Vice President and Senior Litigation and Patent Counsel called upon
Respondent to re-opine, as he had many times before, and Respondent refuses based
upon his stated conflicts of interest when such conflicts of interest were not stated during
the times of the Company’s technology disclosures to Respondent nor in Respondent’s
previous discussions with Warner Bros., and in light of his proffered employment by,
including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC.

Most specifically, the Company submits the statement of P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO Lamont”) that describes his December 2001 to April 2002 discussions and correspondences with Respondent attached herein as Exhibit O, prefaced by letters of David Colter, former Vice President for Advanced Technology of Warner Bros. that references Respondent’s validation of the Company’s inventions.

C. Lastly, the Company re-alleges the misfeasance of Respondent in light of his failure
to file a copyright with the Unites States Library of Congress pertaining to the protection
of the source code algorithmically enabling the Company’s inventions, the drafting of
which was billed for by Mr. Wheeler’s office of Proskauer, although said office, to the
best of the Company’s knowledge, employed no intellectual property attorneys.

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

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
Section VII Subsection A-C, Section VIII Subsection A-C, and Section IX Subsection AC,
inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent concealed and
knowingly: (I) failed to disclose that which Respondent was required by law to disclose;

(II) spoke falsehoods and presented false documents; (III) made false statement of law
and fact; (IV) participated, under the supervision of and with Mr. Joao, who was recruited
by Respondent to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention,
in the creation or preservation of documentation when Respondent knew that said
documentation is false; (V) under the supervision of and with Mr. Raymond Joao had perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal, the USPTO, without revealing the fraud to such tribunal; and (V) engaged in illegal conduct and conduct contrary to Disciplinary Rules.

B. More specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of
maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Brian Utley, Mr.
Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, knowingly failed to
disclose that which Respondent was required by law to disclose, in the allegedly burying
of the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr.
Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself.

Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent knowingly spoke falsehoods and
presented false documents, in investor and potential licensee discussions while
representing the Company as the ultimate responsible party in the Company’s patent
prosecution process, and especially in those certain discussions with the Company’s
“seed” investor, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc., as further described in Section II
Subsection A, and Warner Bros. as further described in Section IX Subsection C, as well
as other clients.

C. Furthermore, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent made false statement of
law and fact, and as to fact in his discussions with investors and potential license
partners, particularly, including but not limited to, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc.,
Warner Bros., Crossbow Ventures, and through others, SONY Corporation, and as
particularly described herein.

D. Additionally, the Company further alleges that Respondent participated, under the
supervision of and with Mr. Joao, who was recruited by Respondent to assist, the
Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention, in the creation or preservation
of documentation when Respondent knew that said documentation is false, as particularly
described in Exhibit B attached herein, the complaint, response, and the Company’s
rebuttal of Raymond A. Joao, Esq.

E. Lastly, the Company further alleges that Respondent according to the supervision of
and with Mr. Joao and attorneys of Foley & Lardner had perpetrated a fraud upon a
tribunal, the USPTO, via principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability,
without revealing the fraud to such tribunal. Finally, as evidenced by this Section,
subsection B-E, inclusive, the Company re-alleges that Respondent engaged in illegal
conduct and conduct contrary to Disciplinary Rules XI. DR 9-102 [§1200.46] Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of Others; Fiduciary Responsibility; Commingling and Misappropriation of Client Funds or Property; Maintenance of Bank Accounts; Record Keeping; Examination of Records.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully set
forth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,
Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,
Section VII Subsection A-C, Section VIII Subsection A-C, and Section IX Subsection AC,
and Section X Subsection A-E, inclusive.

Furthermore, the Company alleges that Respondent failed to maintain required bookkeeping records for the seven (7) year period including, but not limited to copies of all bills that Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Raymond Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, should have rendered to the Company.

Moreover, in representation of the Company, Respondent acknowledges39 that he neither kept no notes, electronic mail messages, nor other records in his deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, and said acknowledgement is attached herein as Exhibit P.

Moreover, and upon request by subsequent patent counsel, Foley & Lardner, a copy of
which is attached herein as Exhibit P, Respondent failed, under principles of respondeat
superior and vicarious liability, to require his charge, Mr. Joao to remit all documents
required under Exhibit P, and not least of all, documentation Mr. Joao, by admission,
destroyed, XII. Lastly, the negligent actions of Respondent resulted in and were the
proximate cause of loss to the Company.

A. The history of the Company, literally back to the first day of discovery of the
inventions, sees the allegations described in Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend to
Assert Counterclaim for Damages, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case
No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach
County, Florida filed May 2, 2001) attached herein as Exhibit Q, a motion of which stems
from that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is instructive
for the alleged violations I to XI above, wherein after review by the Company’s
subsequent patents counsels, the work product of Mr. Raymond Joao, under the supervision of Respondent, under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability, who is
desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to
Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Raymond A. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently,

see Mr. Utley, Mr. Christopher Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, result in the causing of damages to the Company over a twenty year patent life, as described in the Company’s projections across all distribution channels as evidenced by Exhibit R attached herein projected at a present value of approximately Ten Billion Dollars ($10,000,000,000) of potential damages, and much in the way Respondent, the Company alleges, envisioned.

The Company further alleges that, once Respondent and Mr. Joao saw the Company’s
inventions, Respondent sees the personal, financial need to bury these inventions, and
recruits Mr. Raymond Anthony Joao as the executioner of the Company’s inventions.

Moreover, the Company's inventions, while certainly not end to end solutions are literally the backbone technology of, including but not limited to, MPEG and DVD, pose formidable
competitive threats to those pools as graphically portrayed by Exhibit S, and certainly
pose a threat, by this one example, to Respondent’s fee of $8,500 per essential patent;
Respondent counts among his clients both licensors (Alcatel) and licensees (Alcatel, CCube
Microsystems, Divicom a unit of Harmonic) of MPEG evidenced by comparing his
biography at http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/4747 with MPEG LA licensors and licensees at http://www.mpegla.com/.

Moreover, in his response, Respondent relies upon the testimony of certain individuals,
including, but not limited to Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Utley, Mr. Raymond T. Hersh, the former

Chief Financial Officer of the Company, and Gerald Lewin, a principal in the accounting
firm of Goldstein Lewin & Company of Boca Raton, Fla. and the Company’s former
outside C.P.A. firm.

Furthermore, as to Mr. Wheeler, and wherein he states in his deposition that stems from
that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is instructive for
these purposes, that Respondent did not perform any patent work or patent oversight
work, 40 then in another instance Mr. Wheeler states that he contacts Respondent to
determine what Respondent needs to determine the patentability of the Company’s
inventions,41 as evidenced by Exhibit T attached herein, and referencing Mr. Wheeler’s
letter to a one Richard Rossman also contained in Exhibit T.

Additionally, in his Florida Bar response, Mr. Wheeler, while he admits of limited instances of consulting Respondent, is found consulting Respondent who fervently has claimed that “The only
thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer 42.”

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note that
the reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on the
testimony of Mr. Christopher Wheeler that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the above declaration it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Wheeler is worthless.

Additionally, as to Mr. Brian Utley, and wherein he states in his deposition, interalia, that
stems from that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is
instructive for these purposes, at one instance that he had no discussions with Respondent
pertaining to the Company’s intellectual property43, and then in another instance states
that he had conversations with Respondent to apprise him of the status of the Company’s
patent prosecution process relative to a proposed contract with Warner Bros.,44 as
evidenced by Exhibit U attached herein.

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note that
the reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on the
testimony of Mr. Brian Utley that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the above
inconsistencies, it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Utley is worthless.

Furthermore, the Company references the testimony of Raymond T. Hersh, former Chief
Financial Officer of the Company stating the satisfaction of the Company with the
services of Proskauer 45.

However, sometime before, and during Mr. Hersh’s tenure with
the Company, we reference an electronic mail message from a one William R. Kasser, a
former accounting consultant of the Company to Eliot Bernstein, wherein Mr. Kasser, as
a result of an account reconciliation, alleges gross fraud in the booking of Company
revenues by Mr. Hersh and Mr. Brian Utley, as evidenced by Exhibit V attached herein.

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note that the reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on the
testimony of Mr. Hersh that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the above
declaration it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Hersh is worthless.

Additionally, the allegations surrounding the representation of Proskauer Rose LLP, through Respondent and Mr. Wheeler, finds support in the many pieces of evidence portrayed in Section I through XII, and the Complaint will still be better served by enlisting the
participation of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee in
securing the following items:

(I) records of Proskauer Rose records to determine the whereabouts of Respondent from the period of mid 1998 to February 1999; (II) records of MLGS, cross referencing the records of Proskauer to determine the whereabouts of Respondent from the period of mid 1998 to February 1999; and (III) an explanation and the series of events that led up to the referral of Mr. Raymond Joao by Respondent.

Lastly, in the near future, the Company intends to: (I) file a claim with the Lawyers' Fund
for Client Protection as a result of the alleged dishonest conduct in the taking of the
Company’s property, to wit, the irresponsible filing of provisional and non-provisional
patent applications under the supervision of Respondent; (II) fulfill its requirement to
report the loss of property to an Attorney Disciplinary (Grievance) Committee; and (III) fulfill its requirement to submit a written statement to the District Attorney of New York County.

Finally, the Company attaches a witness list, as Appendix I, that contains individual
names, addresses, and telephone numbers, all of which shall attest to Respondent’s, who
is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains
to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer Rose, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion
dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has
recruited Mr. Raymond Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s
inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Brian Utley, Mr. Christopher Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, engagement in a series of dishonesties, appearances of untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation as now conclusively shown by Section I through Section XII, supra, in general, and by Section I Subsection D. paragraphs 1 to 14, in particular
wherein Respondent dishonorably found the need to disavow, interalia:

any knowledge whatsoever of the Company; any knowledge whatsoever of Mr. Bernstein and the other true inventors; any knowledge whatsoever of techniques known as pan and zoom
technology; and through his refusal to answer questions regarding the allegedly
vicariously liable MPEG LA, LLC amongst others; his charge that the deposition was
harassment in that he had nothing to do with the Company; his steadfast denial of
technology known as scaled video; his claim as to never opining on the Company’s
technology; his denial of ever having been involved in meetings concerning the
Company; his denial of ever having any discussion with anyone at Proskauer Rose concerning
the Company’s technology; his admission of not keeping notes or records of his
conversations to Mr. Wheeler;

his acknowledgement of never having billed the Company, though his name appears more than a dozen times, absent those billings that may have purposely removed, in billings from Mr. Christopher Wheeler’s office; his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to the Company’s technologies; his stunning reversal of his possible conversation with third parties regarding the Company’s technologies; and, his lack of knowledge as to why his name appears in an electronic mail message to a member of AOL Time Warner’s investment team, wherein that message states that Respondent opined on the Company’s technologies; the facts of the matter, Mr. Thomas Cahill, when bolstered by Exhibits A through V attached herein, and matched against Respondent’s above referenced disavowals, are clearly beyond dispute.

Sincerely,
IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.
By: P. Stephen Lamont
by Eliot I. Bernstein
his attorney-in-fact
u
Source Start Page 32
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2012%2015%20Letter%20to%20Thomas%20Cahill%20Re%20Krane%20Conflict.pdf
p

Read more...