Jenifer deWolf Paine Proskauer Rose Attorney. Jenifer deWolf Paine was hired by Proskauer Rose LLP and probably Jenifer deWolf Paine was paid big bucks to defend Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs in order to attempt to steal my Intellectual Property.
Even though Jenifer deWolf Paine can easily read the iViewit Technology Story and Jenifer deWolf Paine can see through this reading, watching videos, court documents, billing statements, contracts, USPTO files and more that Proskauer Rose Was involved in the stealing, cover up, conspiracy surrounding the iViewit Technology getting into the wrong hands and the Iviewit Inventors of this technology that we all use that is worth at least 13 Trillion Dollars Today.
Now it seems that Jenifer deWolf Paine, along with many other Proskauer Rose Attorneys have hired Reputation Defender to change the search results and attempt to move down the documents that Jenifer deWolf Paine should have read on the iViewit Technology scandal before she accused me of simply parroting one of the inventors.
Jenifer deWolf Paine should know that blogs, by nature kind of do that anyway, yet Jenifer deWolf Paine felt the need to slam me in the Jenifer deWolf Paine WIPO complaint seemingly defending the honor of Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs - Jenifer deWolf Paine seems to have forgot about Christopher Wheeler and Kenneth Rubenstein who were allegedly there in the first stages of Proskauer Rose involved in the "HELPING" the iViewit Inventors to get their Patent on this amazing Video Technology that over a decade later they don't have rights to.
Jenifer deWolf Paine files a WIPO case against me for telling this story, yet it seems that Jenifer deWolf Paine did not listen to the perjured deposition of Kenneth Rubenstein. Nor does it seem that Jenifer deWolf Paine read the billing discrepancies, nor the documents of evidence in this case. It SEEMS to me, IN MY OPINION that Jenifer deWolf Paine was simply after the money that Proskauer Rose was paying her to come after me. Thing Jenifer deWolf Paine does not seem to know that I was and am speaking the truth, nor does Jenifer deWolf Paine seem to care that I am on the right side of the moral compass on this.
If Jenifer deWolf Paine read up on the Christine Anderson whistelblower case about the whitewashing in the court system for protected attorneys, or if Jenifer deWolf Paine read the lawsuits against Cuomo and other New York Agencies or if Jenifer deWolf Paine read the State Bar Complaints Jenifer deWolf Paine would know that I was not simply "parroting" as Jenifer deWolf Paine called it, but that I was defending the rights of inventors, of citizens inventing something amazing and instead of getting paid, patents and cudos, they got their car bombed and lives ruined.
Does Jenifer deWolf Paine know any of this or was Jenifer deWolf Paine simply answering to the man, with no moral or legal conscience?
Jenifer deWolf Paine seems to think that the iViewit Technology case against Proskauer Rose was over and seemingly Jenifer deWolf Paine thinks long ago. So is Jenifer deWolf Paine a conspirator in this Federal RICO Case, this case that is documented in several courts across the US and in the Europe Patent Office? Why did Jenifer deWolf Paine simply take the side of Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs ? Oh yeah Jenifer deWolf Paine did this because Proskauer Rose Paid Jenifer deWolf Paine to represent them in this silly little WIPO case.
Gues Jenifer deWolf Paine thought it would be easy to shut me up, take my VALUABLE intellectual property and Jenifer deWolf Paine surely must have ALLEGEDLY .. in my Opinion thought that iViewit Inventors rights, quality of life, was not as important as Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs .
Money is not all there is to life Jenifer deWolf Paine. The Truth about Proskauer Rose Attorneys Gregg Mashberg, Joseph Leccese, Alan Fagin, and Matthew Triggs is something that I believe Jenifer deWolf Paine should research. Once Jenifer deWolf Paine has a firm grasp on the real case with Proskauer Rose and iViewit from the beginning, then Jenifer deWolf Paine can have a say that may have some level of intelligence and knowledge in it. IN MY OPINION of COURSE.
Links to Proskauer Rose's Alleged Involvement in the Stealing, Diverting of a 13 Trillion Dollar Video Technology invented by the iViewit Company.
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read http://www.deniedpatent.com/
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read the Proskauer Rose Crime Family Chart
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read the liability list
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Appendix%20A/index.htm#proskauer
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this on Kenneth Rubenstein, Raymond Joao, and Steven Krane of Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2009%2007%20Cahill%20Cover%20Letter%20Transfer%202nd%20Dept%20false.pdf
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2003%2009%2002%20New%20York%20Bar%20Response%20Joao%20and%20Rubenstein.pdf
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this SEC Complaint
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this on Christine Anderson?
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf
http://iviewit.tv/press/press3.pdf
Proskauer Rose Attorneys Involved and Legally Related to the Christine Anderson Case does Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP know this? Does Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP Care or does Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP want to be part of the conspiracy, the problem instead of JUSTICE?
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP watched the Testimony of Christine Anderson ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlK73p4Ueo
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this agreement with Proskauer Rose
https://docs.google.com/a/industrywhistleblower.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kdXN0cnl3aGlzdGxlYmxvd2VyLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6M2EwYzRkNjRiMzljMWE2ZA
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read this on Proskauer Rose Billing
https://docs.google.com/a/industrywhistleblower.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kdXN0cnl3aGlzdGxlYmxvd2VyLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6NTkzYWFlMzU3OGQ0ZmYwYg
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-billing.html
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://www.investigativejournalist.net/2011/02/open-letter-to-time-warner-warner-bros.html
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
https://docs.google.com/a/industrywhistleblower.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=aW5kdXN0cnl3aGlzdGxlYmxvd2VyLmNvbXx3d3d8Z3g6Njc1ZDRmNDQ1MzYwMGNh
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/02/proskauer-rose-llp-billing.html
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine, Proskauer Rose LLP read
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?tag=proskauer-rose
Has Jenifer deWolf Paine heard this Kenneth Rubenstein Allegedly Perjured Deposition ?
http://www.youtube.com/user/eliotbernstein#grid/user/3BFA906636FA9889
Millions a Year it Will Cost Proskauer Rose in my Opinion, to suppress the iViewit Story in the Search Engines and STILL you will NEVER beat me in SEARCH nor Hide this STORY. Jenifer deWolf Paine must know the truth and still Jenifer deWolf Paine SEEMS to do nothing to bring justice to the iViewit Inventors. Jenifer deWolf Paine spent her summer harassing me in my OPINION of the WIPO Case.
Got a Tip on Jenifer deWolf Paine ? email your Jenifer deWolf Paine to me Crystal L. Cox - Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Showing posts with label Joseph Leccese. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Leccese. Show all posts
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose does nothing to "Clean Up" Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Why?
Proskauer Rose has been involved in a major scandal for over a Decade. The FBI, Department of Justice, SEC, Florida Supreme Court, Florida State Bar, New York Supreme Court, New York Bar and more have known about this massive fraud for over a decade.
Now the Solution that Proskauer Rose LLP has come up with in order to STOP the Truth from getting to shareholders and investigators is to take the domain names of an investigative blogger, me ~ Crystal L. Cox. Though I have done nothing but EXPOSE the TRUTH about Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
Proskauer Rose is named in SEC Complaint, what is Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose's new "Head Guy" doing to investigate this? The solution seems to be to try and intimidate an investigative blogger to cover up decades of secrets, crimes, scandals and cover ups of Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
When Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose should really take a look at ALL the documents, evidence of the iViewit Technologies Case, as there is proof on top of proof of Proskauer Rose Attorneys involvement and it is without a doubt a major Liability to Proskauer Rose.
There is no way to look at all the evidence against Proskauer Rose in the iViewit Stolen Technology case and to not see that Proskauer Rose attorneys are GUILTY. So why is Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose putting his career on the line as new "Head Guy" to support criminals that are now under his management ???
Taking the Domain Names of an Investigative Blogger will now STOP the Truth. There is too much evidence proving the Real Facts of the Stolen iViewit Technology and the Involvement of Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
Here are Some Links to Educate Joseph Leccese, Head Guy at Proskauer Rose Law Firm on the major liability of Proskauer Rose over the Stolen iViewit Technology, in which Joseph Leccese seems to have been lied about by Proskauer Rose attorneys involved such as Kenneth Rubenstein, Matthew Triggs and former Proskauer Rose Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler.
SEC Complaint Naming Proskauer Rose with Details as to what REALLY Happened
Proskauer Rose Liability information
Kenneth Rubenstein's Perjured Deposition
Proskauer Rose Crime Chart
Gregg Mashberg Knows of Fraud and the Connections to Whistleblower Cases
in High Courts of New York
Proskauer Rose Sued in Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit over Iviewit Stolen Technology
Information on this Case related to a major Whistleblower Case out of New York
Proskauer Rose MPEG LA Lawyer Sued Over Patents
Lots of Documents, Videos and Information on the FACTS of the Case, should Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose take a good look at the real risk Proskauer Rose face over this 10 year plus case.
Other Links on Proskauer Rose involved in Major Technology Theft
There are over 1200 Documents Online, and massive prove in many federal agencies, federal courts, state bars and for some reason all are protecting Proskauer Rose Law Firm and NOT protecting the Rights of the United States Inventors which is a Constitutional Right. Proskauer Rose is NOT above the Law unless everyone ignores the blatant evidence that proves that Proskauer Rose did in FACT commit these crime and is liable without a doubt for a 13 Trillion Dollar technology theft.
Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Friday, June 17, 2011
Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Perjured Deposition Proskauer Rose - MPEG LA for Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein
Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose does nothing to "Clean Up" Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
Part 1
Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition
Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein.
Kenneth Rubenstein - Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose Partner
Hear More on Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein at Eliot Bernstein's Iviewit Technologies Channel - Click Here
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV and www.DeniedPatent.com
Part 1
Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition
Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein.
Kenneth Rubenstein - Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose Partner
Hear More on Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein at Eliot Bernstein's Iviewit Technologies Channel - Click Here
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV and www.DeniedPatent.com
Friday, April 29, 2011
Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in Major Video Technology Theft. Is Joseph Leccese, Head of Proskauer Rose doing anything?
"MPEG LA involved in Major Video Technology Theft. MPEG LA LLC stole the Iviewit Video Technology
Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General.
More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement. Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?
June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General
" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064
Dear Mr. Ramos:
This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.
You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.
I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats
The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.
(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.
The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,
(2) established the Standard Specifications.
(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.
II. The Proposed Arrangement
A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders
(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:
(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);
(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and
(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.
(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.
(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.
(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."
(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."
(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.
(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.
(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"
(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.
(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.
(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.
(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.
(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.
(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.
(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."
(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."
(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.
(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.
(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."
(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)
Full Letter and Source of Post
Save and Print the Above for Your Records.
Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY knwo that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.
No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.
More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.
GOOG, MPEG LA LLC,
Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose Perjures his Deposition, and is involved in Major Patent Fraud and Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose LLP Does Nothing ?
"Enter William Dick of Foley to Replace Raymond Joao - Misrepresentation, Fraud, Lies, Deceit, IBM Connections - Kenneth Rubenstein Corruption -
"Once Raymond Joao was under “investigation” by Proskauer Rose he was then terminated from service by them, Proskauer instantly found an old friend of Christopher Wheeler’s, a one William Dick of Foley and Christopher Wheeler vouched for his friend William Dick to the Board of Directors.
William Dick, according to Christopher C. Wheeler was IBM’s Patent Counsel for IBM’s far eastern patent pool.
William Dick was also friends and former coworker at IBM and then again with Friedkin with another of Christopher Wheeler’s referrals to the Iviewit companies, Brian G. Utley, who was appointed President of the Iviewit companies whereby Christopher Wheeler had presented afalsified resume for Brian Utley to the Board, Shareholders and Investors, a falsified resume in several key ways.
First, the resume presented to the Board by Christopher Wheeler andProskauer Rose claimed Brian Utley was a college graduate, in deposition Brian Utley utterly denies ever graduating.
The most important fraud on the resume though was on the point of his past employmentwhereby it stated that due to Brian Utley’s innovations for the company, Diamond Turf Equipment, owned by Monte Friedkinhad grown to be one of the best and largest companies of its kind due to Brian Utley’s running that company.
Per Monte Friedkin, it was more like ruining the company, as when Monte Friedkin found Brian Utley, William Dick and Christopher Wheeler stealing Inventions from him, he fired Utley and closed the shop entirely down taking a several million dollar loss.
Major misrepresentation of Brian Utley by Proskauer’s Christopher C. Wheeler but even more astonishing is that the same crew of Brian Utley, Christopher Wheeler and William Dick were involved in the Monte Friedkin frauds.
Many perjured statements regarding these events were submitted to official investigatory bodies and courts and evidence of these perjurious statements have been included in the Exhibit and Linkage Section under the individuals names.
Prior to learning of their seedy past, which had been misrepresented to the Board, Investors and Shareholders, as neither Williamm Dick nor Christopher Wheeler disclosed their past historytogether at Friedkin’s with Brian G. Utley, nor did they share the information of the failed invention theft with anyone else.
Of course, if they did disclose the attempted theft, nobody would have retained them; everyone was in the dark as they handed out falsified resumes and financials to Investment Bankers, Iviewit Investors, Iviewit Shareholders, including the SBA and more.
Foley entered the scene under similar false pretenses with Christopher Wheeler vouching for William Dick’s integrity and again failing to notify anyone of their prior failed invention theft.
Instantly, Foley identified a mass of problems with Raymond Joao’s filing but claimed they could correct everything, such as missing assignments, missing inventors, missing patent disclosure information, etc.
Again, I myself and the Iviewit Board and Shareholders trusted yet another large law firmin the IP field referred again by Proskauer Rose and this time Foley assured Investors, Investment Banks and Shareholders that they could and would fix the problems with Raymond Joao’s filing and so they were retained, again, Proskauer’s Kenneth Rubenstein as oversight.
After several months, Brian Utley came to me and asked me to sign blank patent applications for filings the inventors had not reviewed, Brian Utley claiming they needed to be filed that day, which again was false, as they were not due for several days, Brian Utley persisting that the Inventors had no time for review and that he did not have the IP filing applications to review before signing and could not get them.
Noticing several large patent binders on his desk I went to pick them up with another founder and inventor of the Iviewit technologies, James Frazier Armstrong, and what was discovered inside them was both astonishing and criminal.
Inside the binders were intellectual property filings with now Brian Utley as sole inventor of technologies including for example an application titled “Zoom and Pan on a Digital Camera” and another“Zoom Image Design Applet” both inventions of which Brian Utley was not even employed at the time of invention.
Further, Brian Utley replaced original inventors on original patent filings, those filed incorrectly by Raymond Joao, Foley fraudulently replacing inventors Zakirul Shirajee and Jude Rosario with Brian Utley on filings, again Brian Utley was nowhere near the scene of invention.
Foley now found continuing the Joao fraud it appeared although at the time hard for almost anyone to believe.
Further, there were now two or more sets of patents, which almost were identical but were wholly different, as one set missed the inventions entirely and was fraught with bad math and major errors, the others with Utley’s name seemed to be the broader and more correct filings.
In fact, some of the IP found in the binders taken from Brian Utley were for Intellectual Properties already filed at US Patent Office without anyone’s knowledge, including the Inventors, Shareholders or the Board of Directors, patents that were solely ( or soullessly ) in Utley’s name, being sent to his home address, not Iviewit’s and more.
Almost identical to the Monte Friedkin theft whereby William Dick wrote Friedkin’s inventions into Brian Utley’s name and filed them into a corporation incorporated byProskauer Rose and Christopher Wheeler, outside Friedkin’s employ and without Friedkin’s knowledge or consent.
These fraudulent applications led to immediate taped meetings regarding the fraudulent IP with Foley and Proskauer Partners, Board Members and Shareholders where it was further learned that assignments were missing, inventors were wrong and the patent applications remained filled with errors, I submit to the Committee under the Exhibits and Linkage section of the prepared statement a sample of the IP errors, contained in William Dick’s Virginia Bar Complaint Rebuttal.
Foley was to correct everything in time for the filings, the inventors then corrected the patents, and yet Foley still filed the fraudulent patents with the bad math and other fraudulent information, discarding the inventors’ changes and continuing the fraud.
The cat was almost out of the bag at that time, yet it was almost impossible to believe that these were crimes and not some type of mistakes versus part of an organized criminal syndicate of lawyers and law firms attempting to steal inventions, which only later and still today are being unraveled. At the same time, other information indicating fraud began to surface.
The Arthur Andersen Audit, The Enron Broadband Attempted Technology Transfers,the Collapse of both Enron and Arthur Andersen and the Ties to the Iviewit Inventions:
Another hidden and fraudulent set of events within the Iviewit companies links to Enron Broadband discovered at the same time that Arthur Andersen began a required Audit of the Iviewit Companies performed on behalf of Crossbow Ventures and their corresponding interests of the SBA on their SBIC loans.
Andersen’s Audit discovered identically and similarly named Corporate Shell companies and other misdeeds, as Iviewit also became aware of unauthorized technology transfers taking place by Utley, Dick and Wheeler that included one with Enron Broadband and Blockbuster Video.
Enron Broadband had booked Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in revenue on a future deal with Blockbuster Video to stream full screen full frame video over the Internet, that once the crimes at Iviewit were beginning to be discovered, fell apart overnight. Many of those who fully understand the Enron fraud understand that the Broadband division’s fraud was the “straw that broke the camels back.”
As soon as no technology was to transfer in backdoor secret deals to stream or download the videos due to the investigations, and the scandal was unraveling quickly from the audits findings, everything Enron Broadband and Enron had done had to become extinct overnight. Problem, they already had booked the revenue having forgotten the age-old proverb, “Don't count your chickens before they are hatched”, as greed often blinds the best and brightest too.
I note as an aside that the founder of Blockbuster, Wayne Huizenga and his Son, were the seed investors in the Iviewit companies brought to Iviewit by Proskauer and now named Defendants in my Federal Lawsuit.
Instantly, almost overnight, with discovery of the Iviewit fraud, both Andersen who was in the midst of the Iviewit audit that was revealing fraud and Enron vanished in scandal, in a trail of criminal document shredding to cover their tracks.
Seeing the danger they were in from the exposure of the crimes, our trusted advisors, our retained lawyers and accountants, then began a document shredding of the Iviewit files to rid the evidence of the illegal technology transfers and other evidence revealing their criminal acts.
Similar to what Anderson now describes taking place in the First Department regarding the Cover-Up crimes alleged. According to Iviewit Employees stolen briefcases of cash of investor monies, including the SBA’s money, then used to bribe and attempt to bribe employees to steal proprietary equipment and trade secrets as indicated in one employees written statement contained in the referenced link in my Prepared Statement Submitted to this Committee @http://Iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/SHAREHOLDER%20STATEMENTS%20BOOKMARKED.pdf
Witness testimony on page 10 or found on the Iviewit Homepage under Evidence Link 784. "
Source of Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+Reardon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Proskauer Sucks
Also Check Out www.Iviewit.TV for More on this Proskauer Rose Deceit...
Kenneth Rubenstein
The William Dick Bar Rebuttal from Eliot Bernsten is at the Link Below.
William Dick submitted documents which the patent office claimed where fraudulent which led to suspension and investigation.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2003%2012%20William%20Dick%20Virginia%20Bar%20Complaint%20Response%20BOOKM.pdf
William Dick, according to Christopher C. Wheeler was IBM’s Patent Counsel for IBM’s far eastern patent pool.
William Dick was also friends and former coworker at IBM and then again with Friedkin with another of Christopher Wheeler’s referrals to the Iviewit companies, Brian G. Utley, who was appointed President of the Iviewit companies whereby Christopher Wheeler had presented afalsified resume for Brian Utley to the Board, Shareholders and Investors, a falsified resume in several key ways.
First, the resume presented to the Board by Christopher Wheeler andProskauer Rose claimed Brian Utley was a college graduate, in deposition Brian Utley utterly denies ever graduating.
The most important fraud on the resume though was on the point of his past employmentwhereby it stated that due to Brian Utley’s innovations for the company, Diamond Turf Equipment, owned by Monte Friedkinhad grown to be one of the best and largest companies of its kind due to Brian Utley’s running that company.
Per Monte Friedkin, it was more like ruining the company, as when Monte Friedkin found Brian Utley, William Dick and Christopher Wheeler stealing Inventions from him, he fired Utley and closed the shop entirely down taking a several million dollar loss.
Major misrepresentation of Brian Utley by Proskauer’s Christopher C. Wheeler but even more astonishing is that the same crew of Brian Utley, Christopher Wheeler and William Dick were involved in the Monte Friedkin frauds.
Many perjured statements regarding these events were submitted to official investigatory bodies and courts and evidence of these perjurious statements have been included in the Exhibit and Linkage Section under the individuals names.
Prior to learning of their seedy past, which had been misrepresented to the Board, Investors and Shareholders, as neither Williamm Dick nor Christopher Wheeler disclosed their past historytogether at Friedkin’s with Brian G. Utley, nor did they share the information of the failed invention theft with anyone else.
Of course, if they did disclose the attempted theft, nobody would have retained them; everyone was in the dark as they handed out falsified resumes and financials to Investment Bankers, Iviewit Investors, Iviewit Shareholders, including the SBA and more.
Foley entered the scene under similar false pretenses with Christopher Wheeler vouching for William Dick’s integrity and again failing to notify anyone of their prior failed invention theft.
Instantly, Foley identified a mass of problems with Raymond Joao’s filing but claimed they could correct everything, such as missing assignments, missing inventors, missing patent disclosure information, etc.
Again, I myself and the Iviewit Board and Shareholders trusted yet another large law firmin the IP field referred again by Proskauer Rose and this time Foley assured Investors, Investment Banks and Shareholders that they could and would fix the problems with Raymond Joao’s filing and so they were retained, again, Proskauer’s Kenneth Rubenstein as oversight.
After several months, Brian Utley came to me and asked me to sign blank patent applications for filings the inventors had not reviewed, Brian Utley claiming they needed to be filed that day, which again was false, as they were not due for several days, Brian Utley persisting that the Inventors had no time for review and that he did not have the IP filing applications to review before signing and could not get them.
Noticing several large patent binders on his desk I went to pick them up with another founder and inventor of the Iviewit technologies, James Frazier Armstrong, and what was discovered inside them was both astonishing and criminal.
Inside the binders were intellectual property filings with now Brian Utley as sole inventor of technologies including for example an application titled “Zoom and Pan on a Digital Camera” and another“Zoom Image Design Applet” both inventions of which Brian Utley was not even employed at the time of invention.
Further, Brian Utley replaced original inventors on original patent filings, those filed incorrectly by Raymond Joao, Foley fraudulently replacing inventors Zakirul Shirajee and Jude Rosario with Brian Utley on filings, again Brian Utley was nowhere near the scene of invention.
Foley now found continuing the Joao fraud it appeared although at the time hard for almost anyone to believe.
Further, there were now two or more sets of patents, which almost were identical but were wholly different, as one set missed the inventions entirely and was fraught with bad math and major errors, the others with Utley’s name seemed to be the broader and more correct filings.
In fact, some of the IP found in the binders taken from Brian Utley were for Intellectual Properties already filed at US Patent Office without anyone’s knowledge, including the Inventors, Shareholders or the Board of Directors, patents that were solely ( or soullessly ) in Utley’s name, being sent to his home address, not Iviewit’s and more.
Almost identical to the Monte Friedkin theft whereby William Dick wrote Friedkin’s inventions into Brian Utley’s name and filed them into a corporation incorporated byProskauer Rose and Christopher Wheeler, outside Friedkin’s employ and without Friedkin’s knowledge or consent.
These fraudulent applications led to immediate taped meetings regarding the fraudulent IP with Foley and Proskauer Partners, Board Members and Shareholders where it was further learned that assignments were missing, inventors were wrong and the patent applications remained filled with errors, I submit to the Committee under the Exhibits and Linkage section of the prepared statement a sample of the IP errors, contained in William Dick’s Virginia Bar Complaint Rebuttal.
Foley was to correct everything in time for the filings, the inventors then corrected the patents, and yet Foley still filed the fraudulent patents with the bad math and other fraudulent information, discarding the inventors’ changes and continuing the fraud.
The cat was almost out of the bag at that time, yet it was almost impossible to believe that these were crimes and not some type of mistakes versus part of an organized criminal syndicate of lawyers and law firms attempting to steal inventions, which only later and still today are being unraveled. At the same time, other information indicating fraud began to surface.
The Arthur Andersen Audit, The Enron Broadband Attempted Technology Transfers,the Collapse of both Enron and Arthur Andersen and the Ties to the Iviewit Inventions:
Another hidden and fraudulent set of events within the Iviewit companies links to Enron Broadband discovered at the same time that Arthur Andersen began a required Audit of the Iviewit Companies performed on behalf of Crossbow Ventures and their corresponding interests of the SBA on their SBIC loans.
Andersen’s Audit discovered identically and similarly named Corporate Shell companies and other misdeeds, as Iviewit also became aware of unauthorized technology transfers taking place by Utley, Dick and Wheeler that included one with Enron Broadband and Blockbuster Video.
Enron Broadband had booked Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in revenue on a future deal with Blockbuster Video to stream full screen full frame video over the Internet, that once the crimes at Iviewit were beginning to be discovered, fell apart overnight. Many of those who fully understand the Enron fraud understand that the Broadband division’s fraud was the “straw that broke the camels back.”
As soon as no technology was to transfer in backdoor secret deals to stream or download the videos due to the investigations, and the scandal was unraveling quickly from the audits findings, everything Enron Broadband and Enron had done had to become extinct overnight. Problem, they already had booked the revenue having forgotten the age-old proverb, “Don't count your chickens before they are hatched”, as greed often blinds the best and brightest too.
I note as an aside that the founder of Blockbuster, Wayne Huizenga and his Son, were the seed investors in the Iviewit companies brought to Iviewit by Proskauer and now named Defendants in my Federal Lawsuit.
Instantly, almost overnight, with discovery of the Iviewit fraud, both Andersen who was in the midst of the Iviewit audit that was revealing fraud and Enron vanished in scandal, in a trail of criminal document shredding to cover their tracks.
Seeing the danger they were in from the exposure of the crimes, our trusted advisors, our retained lawyers and accountants, then began a document shredding of the Iviewit files to rid the evidence of the illegal technology transfers and other evidence revealing their criminal acts.
Similar to what Anderson now describes taking place in the First Department regarding the Cover-Up crimes alleged. According to Iviewit Employees stolen briefcases of cash of investor monies, including the SBA’s money, then used to bribe and attempt to bribe employees to steal proprietary equipment and trade secrets as indicated in one employees written statement contained in the referenced link in my Prepared Statement Submitted to this Committee @http://Iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/SHAREHOLDER%20STATEMENTS%20BOOKMARKED.pdf
Witness testimony on page 10 or found on the Iviewit Homepage under Evidence Link 784. "
Source of Post
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+Reardon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Proskauer Sucks
Also Check Out www.Iviewit.TV for More on this Proskauer Rose Deceit...
Kenneth Rubenstein
The William Dick Bar Rebuttal from Eliot Bernsten is at the Link Below.
William Dick submitted documents which the patent office claimed where fraudulent which led to suspension and investigation.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2003%2012%20William%20Dick%20Virginia%20Bar%20Complaint%20Response%20BOOKM.pdf
More on MPEG LA, Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Kenneth Rubenstein, Foley and Lardner Law Firm, Intel Corp (INTC), Time Warner, Warner Bros, AOL and More Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Video Coding Technology
Posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)