Christine Anderson - New York Courts Whistleblower	Christine C Anderson New York Senate Judiciary Committee Testimony Sen John Sampson 2	Senate Judiciary Committee Public Hearing 06/08/09 Part 1 of 2	Proskauer Rose LLP WIPO Decision Crystal L Cox Blogger Part 2
01/09/2011 Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Inventor Presidential Campaign Part 1 - 5	Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Inventor 2012 Presidential Campaign Speech 2	Campaign Agendas Lawmaker Reform Special Prosecutors See Pro Se Federal Crime Victim Voters	02/09/12 Roxanne Grinage 40 min Teaching Segment: Citizens Public Docket Achieves President SOTU Dept Justice Senate CPS Economy Court Reform

11/11/11 Roxanne Grinage HireLyrics respectfully suggested administrative solutions Build This Schematics Iviewit Technologies Fight For The Grail Births EIBCSB Estate Heirs Community Generational Career Paths Growing.pdf

Proskauer Rose LLP WIPO Decision Crystal L Cox Blogger - Part 1 Crystal Cox uses sponsor dollars independent Citizens Journalism opportunities afforded by collaborative powers of internet technologies to give a voice to many groups of similarly situated victims including Iviewit authentic inventors founders and shareholders.	Listen Radio Host Dave Miller Think Out Loud Discuss Oregon Federal Judge Questionable Opinion and Order 2.5 Million Defamation Awarded to Oregon Business Man because Montana Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Utilized Sponsor Dollars Free Citizens Journalism to Restore Courage to Journalism.mp3

Eliot Bernstein Estate Births Career Paths Growin Iviewit Investigations Peoples Party Fair Voting Devine Constitution Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Inventor 2012 Presidential Campaign Speech 2 Free download Released October 14 2011 Eleven Pages Transcript YouTube Channel EliotBernstein Video Presentation October 14, 2011 announced People's Party (internet participation) Devine Constitution Presidential Campaign Vision of Eliot Ivan Bernstein Inventor Webcast Iviewit Technologies.pdf 101411 Listen to audio of EliotBernstein YouTube Channel Posted Video Presentation1hr 48min People's Party (internet participated) Devine Constitution Presidential Campaign Vision Eliot Ivan Bernstein Inventor Webcast Iviewit Technologies - Remember Federal Crime Victims are a tragically far too large Voter Constituency whose endorsement and impeachment clout can be organized to Leverage Individual Accountability for Official Corruption Fraud Civil Rights Violations - The more than 1020 American Working Class Student and Impoverished Federal Crime Victim Claimants Verified by HireLyrics Administrative Services Endorses Presidential Campaign Vision of Eliot Ivan Berstein - People's Party (internet participated) Devine Constitution as a Viable solutions for societal and family preservation - Respectfully Ezekiel and Arriyel's Grandma Roxanne Grinage .wma Iviewit Blogosphere Digital Video and Imaging Patent Pending Technologies « IBM accused of WAR CRIMES in APARTHIED LAWSUIT before Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin of the US District Court - Southern District NY. IBM also a named Defendant in Iviewit Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein’s Federal 12 Trillion RICO patent theft lawsuit. Have they disclosed all this to IBM Shareholders??? Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies files SEC & FBI Complaint with Mary Schapiro & Others against Warner Bros., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin, Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner » Iviewit & Eliot I. Bernstein Official Formal Complaint sent by Official SEC Email and Official Email Addresses to Other Investigatory Agencies and Committees addressed herein, Against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. and Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 and other SEC, accounting violations and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws; Rescissory rights of Shareholders; Evidence and Important Information for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Sir Robert Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon, Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen and more. I VIEWIT TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Surf with Vision FOR A COLOR SIGNED FINGERPRINTED FILED COPY CLICK ME - FOR HYPERACTIVE VERSION READ ON Eliot I. Bernstein Founder & Inventor Direct Dial: (561) 245-8588 (o) (561) 886-7628 (c) Friday, February 12, 2010 OFFICIAL COMPLAINT Addressed to all of the following parties: SEC, Chairperson Mary Shapiro @ CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov and enforcement@sec.gov, SEC, Office of Chief Accountant @ enforcement@sec.gov, SEC, Office of International Affairs @ enforcement@sec.gov, SEC, Office of International Enforcement Assistance @ enforcement@sec.gov, SEC, Division of Enforcement @ enforcement@sec.gov, SEC, Office of Internet Enforcement @ enforcement@sec.gov, SEC, Division of Corporate Finance @ enforcement@sec.gov, SEC, Division of Corporate Finance Chief Accountant’s Office ( CF-OCA ) @ , enforcement@sec.gov SEC INSPECTOR GENERAL, H. David Kotz @ oig@sec.gov INSPECTOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Glenn Fine @ glenn.a.fine@usdoj.gov & oig.hotline@usdoj.gov , Federal Bureau of Investigation – White Collar Crime Unit and all other appropriate divisions @ Miami@ic.fbi.gov , HOUSE AND SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES @ john.conyers@mail.house.gov , NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE @ members’ individual email addresses, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Eric Holder, Jr., @ inspector.general@usdoj.gov & AskDOJ@usdoj.gov Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, David Gouvaia @ Complaints@tigta.treas.gov and david.gouvaia@tigta.treas.gov SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION INSPECTOR GENERAL, Peggy E. Gustafson & Daniel J. O’Rourke @ daniel.o’rourke@sba.gov & http://web.sba.gov/oigcss/client/dsp_welcome.cfm Complaint Form US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INSPECTOR GENERAL, Todd J. Zinser @ hotline@oig.doc.gov Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the US Patent Office, David Kappos @ david.kappos@USPTO.gov Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO, Sharon Barner @ Sharon.Barner@USPTO.gov US PATENT OFFICE - OFFICE OF ENROLLMENT AND DISCIPLINE DIRECTOR, Harry I. Moatz @ Harry.Moatz@USPTO.GOV UNITED STATES OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, The Honorable President of the United States Barack Obama @ Facsimile +1 (202) 456-2461 This FORMAL OFFICIAL COMPLAINT is filed with the Official SEC Complaint Intake Email Address: enforcement@sec.gov & CHAIRMANOFFICE@sec.gov and also filed with all investigators or committees the letter is addressed to, please make this Formal Complaint a part of all ongoing investigations or committees’ records regarding Iviewit companies and Eliot I, Bernstein, Inventor. Re:         Official Formal Complaint sent by Official SEC Email and Official Email Addresses to Other Investigatory Agencies and Committees addressed herein, Against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc. and Time Warner, regarding Trillion Dollar alleged fraud on Shareholders; FASB No. 5 and other SEC, accounting violations and Violations of State, Federal and International Laws; Rescissory rights of Shareholders; Evidence and Important Information for the SEC regarding ongoing SEC Investigations of Bernard L. Madoff, Marc S. Dreier, Allen Stanford, Proskauer Rose, Galleon Enron Broadband, Enron, Arthur Andersen, and more. Complaint filed against, including but not limited to; Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. Chairman and CEO: Barry M. Meyer; Pres+ident and COO: Alan F. Horn; EVP and CFO: Edward A. Romano; Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel: Wayne M. Smith AOL, Inc. Chairman and CEO: Tim Armstrong; General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development: Ira Parker; Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing: Christopher Day; Executive Escalation Team: Jerry McKinley Time Warner, Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer: Jeffrey L. Bewkes; Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Time Warner Inc.: Paul T. Cappuccio * For a more complete list of complained of parties herein from these companies, see Exhibit 1. Conflict of interest disclosure form – please read and accept prior to further handling of this complaint. The form is listed as exhibit 2. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN FEDERAL AND STATE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CHARGES AGAINST YOU! INTRODUCTION – BACKGROUND INFO I, Eliot Bernstein, of 2753 NW 34th Street, Boca Raton, Florida 33434, as one of the Original Owners and Inventors of revolutionary “backbone technologies” that transformed digital video and imaging, am filing this FORMAL COMPLAINT with the SEC and all agencies and committees addressed herein, against Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., AOL Inc., Time Warner, Inc. and Time Warner Cable, whereby these companies and all of their subsidiaries, affiliates, contractors, agents and employees collectively are referred to herein as (“Warner Bros et al.”). Please note that these companies previously were under the same corporate structure during most, if not all, of the critically relevant times to this complaint. This timeframe includes both the original merger of Warner Bros et al. to the recent breakup of Warner Bros et al. and the allegations levied herein may have directly, and illegally, influenced those transactions to the detriment of Shareholders. Future detrimental effects on Shareholders, if failure to investigate these matters is not instant, may result in causing further massive losses to Shareholders of these highly traded New York Stock Exchange companies. The losses could be thousands of times greater than the Ponzi Schemes of Stanford, Madoff and Dreier combined and those schemes evidenced herein have ties to the alleged crimes described herein. For your convenience, I have attached the following link to a Press Statement issued about the Merger of Warner Bros et al. back in 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aol and http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,667602,00.html In addition, I make a special note concerning the urgency and Time Sensitive nature of these matters predicated upon various factors, including but not limited to, the recent corporate split of AOL Inc. and Time Warner, Inc., which itself should be fully and completely investigated by the SEC as part of this complaint with direct correlation to the matters herein, for all of the reasons set forth herein. The Investigation should, include but not be limited to, all original stock and securities related transactions in the original Warner Bros et al. merger and all transactions forward. All of these transactions dating back to 1998 may have been influenced by the alleged fraud and involvement in criminal activity described herein.                 Leading Industry Experts working inside Warner Bros et al. (See attached Exhibit 1 – List of Warner Bros et al. contacts) and related companies, tested, used, viewed, approved, validated, Contracted and Licensed February 15, 2001 ~ Signed Licensing Contract – my technologies under multiple Non Disclosures and other Licensing Agreements. Attached hereto are various Internal communications within Warner Bros et al. documenting the relationship and admitted uses, including an ADMISSION by technologists within the organization, that my Technologies were being infringed upon AFTER NDA’s had been executed. These agreements then resulted in a Signed and Executed Licensing Agreement at that time as illustrated and exhibited herein. Warner Bros et al. and others complained of herein may be perpetrating Massive Fraud on their Shareholders through concealment of these Massive Liabilities resulting from the theft and unauthorized uses of my technologies over almost a decade. The technologies have revolutionized digital imaging and video hardware and software and instantly heralded by leading experts in 1998 as the “Holy Grail” of the Internet that allows quality video and imaging as now used worldwide by almost every user of a PC. But broader than merely the Internet the technologies are used on virtually every camera, video camera, television, medical imaging device, telescope, microscope, satellite, DVD, graphics chip, gaming hardware and software, flight and space simulators, etc. and paved the way for new markets entirely, such as cell phone video and Voice Over Internet Protocol (“VOIP”). Then it was discovered that our Intellectual Property Attorneys from Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley”) and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe & Schlissel LLP (“Meltzer”) with the help of early licensors of my technologies, including Intel Corporation (“Intel”), Lockheed Martin (“Lockheed”), Silicon Graphics Inc. (“SGI” ), Warner Bros., AOL, IBM and more, tried to grab the “Grail”. When caught, as evidenced herein, these powerful law firms and blue chip companies resorted to terrorist styled attacks on the key inventor, including a Car Bombing and Death threats. As I have attempted to pursue my rights and report their crimes, they have further resorted to a litany of cover up crimes in the courts and at regulatory agencies and again they were caught violating law and public offices over the last nine years in efforts to stave off prosecution for their crimes. All of these offenses are subject to multiple ongoing State, Federal and International investigations and a Twelve 12 Twelve, 12 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit. May 09, 2008 Federal RICO 12 Count 12 Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Amended Complaint @   . The Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit has been marked legally “RELATED” to a Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit of a New York Supreme Court Staff Attorney, discussed herein in under the section Titled “Discussion of Ongoing Lawsuits and Related Cases to Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson” . Sony, Intel, Lockheed, IBM, Silicon Graphics and others are also complained of herein and all authorities this complaint is addressed too should investigate all those Defendants in my Amended Complaint exhibited herein, many for similar and identical crimes. Time Sensitive Urgency to this Complaint; POTENTIAL Catastrophic Effects to the Shareholders of Warner Bros et al.; Fraud could Trigger Rescissory Shareholder Rights To further establish the urgency and Time Sensitive nature of this FORMAL COMPLAINT, please note that the criminal fraud and other crimes described herein will likely trigger Rescissory Rights of Shareholders at all of the respective and related companies of Warner Bros et al., which likely will have Catastrophic impact on both the companies and its Shareholders. Therefore, the SEC must instantly investigate these matters and instantly bring the matters to the attention of the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders, Auditors, Financial Institutions and all other parties with potential liabilities resulting from the allegations herein and whereby if the companies and their Executives fail to notify Shareholders and Regulators, the SEC must act quickly to notify them. The SEC must begin immediate investigation of the Securities Frauds described herein and prevent ongoing and future fraudulent corporate transactions from further harming Shareholders of Warner Bros et al. Further, I point out to the SEC herein what looks like a recent pattern of Shareholder Fraud and Deceit done with Scienter, beginning on or about March 2009, by Officers, Directors, Counsel and Auditors for Warner Bros et al., which are alleged to have been done in order to commit further fraud upon the Warner Bros et al. Shareholders. That these recent corporate restructurings may be the result of Key Executives of Warner Bros et al. attempting to abscond with corporate assets through a series of recent complex corporate breakups. The breakups began immediately after I contacted Warner Bros. in March 2009 with my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq. (“Hall”), regarding massive unreported liabilities to their Shareholders A similar alleged corporate restructuring through the Bankruptcy court was done by SGI several days after notice of liabilities almost identical to those described herein and is discussed in more detail in the section titled “IVIEWIT SEC COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST INTEL, LOCKHEED MARTIN AND SGI” Liabilities resulting from Warner Bros et. al’s involvement in my Twelve Count Twelve Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and additional liabilities resulting from the knowing infringement of my Intellectual Properties and for their failure to report these liabilities under FASB No.5 and other laws. This Formal Complaint for Investigation of Warner Bros et al. on this day, Friday, February 12, 2010comes after Hall and I made repeated Good Faith attempts since March 2009 to address the Business and Corporate Responsibility issues with Executives, Officers, Board Members and Auditors at the respective companies. Warner Bros et al. was contacted in order to find possible solutions to avoid catastrophic events from occurring to their Shareholders, if possible, prior to further actions with investigators, including the SEC. The following timeline of events will establish the correlations between the allegations of fraud described herein, in relation to the timing of the corporate restructurings of Warner Bros et al. Correlations in time with both the 2001 merger and now in the 2009 breakup with the frauds described herein, will provide the SEC a basis, mired in factual evidence, to begin immediate investigation of this complaint for massive securities fraud, in order to protect Shareholders from further possible related losses in these highly traded blue chip stocks. TIMELINE OF WARNER BROS ET AL. RELATIONSHIP WITH IVIEWIT                 The following Timelines are presented to give a factual timeline to the allegations herein, the exhibits are linked online and all Uniform Resource Locators (“URL”) and Exhibited Links throughout this document are hereby incorporated, in entirety by reference herein, including over 1000 evidentiary links on the homepage at www.iviewit.tv with exhibits that contain thousands of pages of factual evidence. All Agencies addressed herein, should print all exhibits referenced herein, as the Whistleblower case of Anderson points to Official Document Destruction and Tampering of Evidence. The timeline will also reveal facts regarding the relationships between many of the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and Warner Bros et al., including relations to the main perpetrator of the alleged crimes, the law firm Proskauer Rose. *Note Warner Bros et al. relevant mergers, acquisitions and breakups to these matters in the timeline below are in bold italics. 1998-2002 Relevant Communications Between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. · 1998-2001 Inventions in Imaging and Video Discovered and Intellectual Property Filings begin in 1998. Proskauer Rose was retained Intellectual Property counsel for Iviewit for filing of Intellectual Properties. · 2000-2002Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements. Non-Disclosure Agreements @ Pages 1-5, 10, 61-62, 80, 108-109, 234 · November 02, 2000 ~ Letter to GS regarding Warner Bros. Technological Calls to Iviewit Investors by Warner Bros. employees, describing the efficacy of the Inventions and the results of the review by Warner Bros., including the anticipated uses by Warner Bros et al. · January 11, 2001     ~ America Online and Time Warner Complete Merger to Create AOL Time Warner AOL PRESS RELEASE COMPLETED MERGER WITH TIME WARNER · February 08, 2001 ~ Letter from David J. Colter (“Colter”) ~ Vice President Technology - Technological Operations Warner Bros. to Founder of AOL, Ted Leonsis (“Leonsis”), regarding the efficacy of the Iviewit technologies. http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010208%20Colter%20to%20Leonsis%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL.pdf · February 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - Signed Warner Bros. License And Service Agreement · August 15, 2001       Irell & Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements   o It is imperative for the SEC to note that after the Signed Licensing and Service Agreement, Iviewit opened a California Office inside a Warner Bros. building, in order to take over encoding operations for their online content, and more. Iviewit began billing according to the Licensing and Service agreement. Please note the language in the Licensing and Service agreement pertaining to the Proprietary nature and Confidentiality of the Iviewit inventions. Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees. Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office. It should be noted here that the US Patent Office upon reviewing the patents found enough evidence of FRAUD UPON THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE to OFFICIALLY SUSPEND THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTIES FILED BY PROSKAUER, FOLEY AND MELTZER, while INVESTIGATIONS of the LAWYERS involved is ONGOING, including Proskauer, Foley, Meltzer, Rubenstein and Joao, as further described and exhibited later herein. At this point, allegedly, a coordinated conspiratorial effort between Smith, Rubenstein and others began to derail the already signed Iviewit agreements with Warner Bros et al. Allegedly, former “Acting CEO” of Iviewit, P. Stephen Lamont, (a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement. Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the Signed and Binding agreement is wholly denied. The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, it may still be considered effective. Yet, it would difficult to cancel what one tries to deny the existence of and perhaps the reason no cancellation was formally completed. o The emails forward from this point in the timeline begin to attempt to hide from the fact that Licensing and Service Agreements were already in place while also hiding these facts and liabilities from Shareholders and Auditors. The alleged fraud may again have catastrophic effect on these highly traded stocks, reaching back to this point in time and possibly further back.     · May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Chey, formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony (also under Signed Agreements) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor. Since that time, Warner Bros et al. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit. DOUGLAS CHEY BIO o The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION of Sony’s involvement in these matters. Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors. I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony. The SEC and all other investigators and committees addressed herein, can take this Formal Complaint additionally as a FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST SONY. · December 20, 2001 ~ Lamont letter to Rubenstein regarding Smith and Rubenstein and the refusal of Rubenstein to RE-OPINE to Smith due to what he claims is a “CONFLICT”, which led further to the breakdown of relations between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. Lamont later affirmed to Shareholders in a written communication that Microsoft had planted him in the Iviewit companies. Later Lamont changed that story to AOL and Leonsis’ niece had planted him in Iviewit through AOL Founder Leonsis’ best friend Chuck Brunelas (“Brunelas”). Brunelas recruited under contract Lamont to the Iviewit companies on behalf of Leonsis. Lamont’s revelations of being a plant at the company, which came after he was hired, led to the termination of Lamont at that time. March 11, 2005 Lamont Termination Letter December 20, 2001 Lamont Letters to Rubenstein ~ Pages 455-462 November 09, 2001 ~ Brunelas Employment Agreement o Based on new information since that time, it is alleged that Rubenstein, Lamont, Leonsis and Smith operated together to sabotage Iviewit/Warner Bros et al. relations and others, purposefully to breach the prior signed licensing agreements and avoid paying the royalties owed to the Iviewit companies, using the old “good guy / bad guy” routine. o The SEC should note here that Hall and I recently reported Lamont to Federal and State authorities for alleged collusion in the RICO and ANTITRUST activities claimed in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit, including ongoing criminal activities. Also learned since that time, is that P. Stephen Lamont may have had prior fraudulent securities related problems at his former employer Digital Factory, not disclosed in his resume submitted by Brunelas. Further, Lamont continues to represent himself and Iviewit Shareholders as the Iviewit CEO, when he is fully aware of his termination from employment and that he has no authorization from the Board of Directors, Management or Shareholders to represent their security interests in Iviewit companies, this securities fraud also should be subject for investigation by the SEC. o Lamont claims to be CEO of Iviewit Technologies, Inc. in multiple correspondences and Federal court papers with an address at 175 King Street, Armonk, N.Y. 10504. To the best of my knowledge, no Iviewit office is authorized or incorporated at this address or in the state of New York. The office is directly across the street from Defendant in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit IBM’s world headquarters. o Additional Evidence for the SEC regarding Lamont is contained in a June 18, 2009 Letter to New York Attorney General Chief of Staff, Steven M. Cohen regarding fraudulent activities of Lamont o The SEC should note here that Lamont’s initial resume submitted by Iviewit contracted employment recruiter, Brunelas, is materially different and contradicts what Lamont himself recently claims regarding his past on the Iviewit Homepage, in multiple court filings and other letters to Iviewit shareholders. § Original 2001 Resume Submitted to Iviewit on P. Stephen Lamont by Brunelas § 2001 Resume Claims the following: Columbia University School of Law ~ J. D. in Commercial and Regulatory Law - May 1992 Columbia University Graduate School of Business ~ M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting - May 1981 State University of New York at Cortland ~ B.A. in Economics - June 1978 § 2009 Iviewit Homepage Statement written by P. Stephen Lamont claims: “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” Source www.iviewit.tv homepage. Whereby Lamont’s legal and other degrees claimed are wholly different and therefore false in one or both of his background accounts as they are materially different, again causation for further investigation of Lamont by the SEC and other investigators this letter has been copied or addressed to. Further, you will note that Lamont refers to himself as “former Acting CEO of Iviewit” and claims counsel advised him to resign any official role due to the potential for charges of fraud, and I advised Lamont to follow counsels’ advice and personally, I did not accept any official roles on counsels’ advice. Yet, even in recent court documents and other illegally signed documents executed by Lamont to major Blue Chip companies, including Microsoft, Lamont now represents himself as CEO of Iviewit opposite of counsels’ advice, at an address that is not registered to any company Lamont claims to be employed as CEO by. August 05, 2009 Lamont Letter to Microsoft   § Lamont further now claims such executive role in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit, claiming he is CEO of Iviewit, when no Board has ever put him in that position and when he is fully cognizant that he has no authority legally to represent Iviewit Shareholders. Lamont even attempts to represent Iviewit Shareholders and Companies currently in Federal Court, while not having ever passed the bar to practice law and therefore precluding him from representing others in court. Again, cause for further investigation of Lamont. February 09, 2009 Lamont Court Filing The SEC should note here that while the document claims service on February 09, 2008, it appears executed February 09, 2009. Whereby the SEC should also note that Lamont does not represent himself individually in the Lawsuit but instead only acts on behalf of Iviewit Shareholders, of which he has no authorization from Iviewit Shareholders or any Iviewit Board of Directors to act on their behalf. Finally, at the company Digital Factory that Lamont lists as one of his former employers, in his resume previously exhibited herein, one of the company employees later disclosed that Lamont had been in stock trouble for securities fraud with the board of that company, of course Lamont’s resume failed to disclose this material fact. · December 31, 2001 – Letter from Brunelas to Greg B. Thagard (“Thagard”) ~ Vice President Advanced Technology Technical Operations at Warner Bros. The letter is regarding Thagard’s acceptance of an Iviewit Advisory Board Position. Later both Thagard and Colter would receive Iviewit Stock options for their Board roles with approval of Warner Bros. and Sony executives.   · January 07, 2002 ~ Letters by Lamont regarding his meeting with Rubenstein regarding Warner Bros et al. Rubenstein presented the exhibited document in draft form at his deposition, read it at the deposition and then dodged questions regarding why his name is referenced in relation to opinions he gave to Warner Bros et al. after denying he knew anything about Iviewit or the patents. The letter wholly contradicts his prior denial of knowing of the Iviewit inventions or Eliot Bernstein, contradicting his sworn deposition statements and sworn letters to Judge Jorge Labarga, constituting multiple instances of perjury and more. January 07, 2002 Lamont letters to Rubenstein Pages 19-23 November 20, 2002 Rubenstein Deposition and Deposition Exhibits Pages 1-100, the exhibits attached to the deposition of Rubenstein show Rubenstein’s denials to the court of knowledge of Iviewit and even claiming he was being harassed, as he knew nothing, which in deposition his statements become clear as wholly perjurious. · January 14, 2002          Warner Bros. employee Colter’s internal Warner Bros. document containing an Admission of Use of Iviewit Proprietary Processes and Violation of NON-DISCLOSURE agreements by many Warner Bros et al. employees. The letter also provides affirmation that Rubenstein (MPEGLA LLC Patent Counsel, former Iviewit Proskauer Rose Patent Counsel, Warner Bros. counsel and Iviewit Shareholder) opined favorably to Warner Bros. The document again directly refutes Rubenstein’s statements in deposition and written communications to the Labarga court that he did not opine or even know of the Iviewit inventions.   · February 17, 2002 – Eliot Bernstein letter to Brunelas regarding Smith’s sudden request to have Rubenstein of Proskauer speak to him to re-opine on his former statements, already exhibited herein, regarding the efficacy and novelty of the patents. Rubenstein was acting Patent Counsel to Iviewit as indicated in the exhibited Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer billed to author and distribute to Iviewit potential investors. The links below provide information on Rubenstein’s position as an Iviewit Board member and Iviewit Patent Counsel despite his statements to the contrary. At the time Smith requested to speak with Rubenstein to restate his opinions, Iviewit already terminated Proskauer and Rubenstein and investigations were already underway regarding the patent thefts and more. February 17, 2002 Letter from Eliot Bernstein to Brunelas. January 2001 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum, whereby the SEC should note here that Rubenstein is listed both as Iviewit Patent Counsel and an Iviewit Advisory Board member. Page 4 – “Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio - Mr. Rubenstein is the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool. Page 16 - “Strong and Experienced Board of Directors and Advisory Board.” iviewit’s Board of Directors and Advisors consist of several well-established individuals from the technology, entertainment, and financial community. Directors have extensive backgrounds with top-tier firms such as Goldman Sachs, Kidder Peabody, and McKinsey & Co. Crossbow Ventures has provided $3.0 million in funding and sits on the Board. Technology and entertainment guidance comes from a partner at Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway & Wertheimer and from Kenneth Rubenstein, the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool. Additionally on Page 16 - “The Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio. The Company’s strategy is to establish market precedence through licensing of trade secrets and know-how. Page 38 – ADVISORY BOARD SECTION “Kenneth Rubenstein Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP. Mr. Rubenstein is a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and is the patent attorney for iviewit. He is a registered patent attorney before the US. Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Rubenstein counsels his clients with respect to the validity and infringement of competitors’ patents, as well as prosecutes patent applications. For the past several years he has worked on the formation of a patent pool, for MPEG-2 technology, involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies. He is also a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. Mr. Rubenstein received his law degree, cum laude, from New York Law School and his Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he also graduated with a B.S. Degree. o The SEC should note here that Rubenstein’s attempt to claim he never heard of Iviewit, including at his deposition, allegedly is due to the massive conflicts of interest that Rubenstein had. If Rubenstein were patent counsel to Iviewit and simultaneously counsel to Warner Bros et al. when he originally opined to Colter, without conflict waivers or disclosure, this obviously would have violated attorney conduct codes and law. Additionally, a false statement in a Private Placement Memorandum violates securities laws. Additionally, Rubenstein is conflicted with Iviewit his client and the patent pooling scheme and artifice to fraud inventors he has created, MPEGLA LLC, where again he acted as counsel and founder of MPEGLA LLC while also patent counsel to Iviewit, no conflict waivers were gained to protect Iviewit. The conflict here is again obvious where the Iviewit technologies were the single greatest threat to his pools as Iviewit has the dominant technology, which without, the MPEG license would be worthless. The SEC should note that Rubenstein initially misrepresented himself and Joao as Proskauer Partners to Iviewit, when prior to learning of my inventions they were both with Meltzer. Rubenstein is counsel and sole patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC now one of the largest infringers of the Iviewit technologies, licensing Warner Bros et al. and thousands of others. Proskauer, after learning of my technologies value, estimated at a trillion dollars to “priceless” by leading engineers at Real 3D, Inc. and without a patent department at the time in 1998, then rushed to acquire Rubenstein and his Meltzer patent group and control and monetization of the MPEGLA LLC pools. When the acquisition was complete, Proskauer, my former patent counsel, directly began inuring benefits from the stolen technologies via their new client MPEGLA LLC in their new Intellectual Property department created after learning of my inventions now headed by Rubenstein and other Meltzer partners. MPEGLA has now tied and bundled my inventions to their pools licensing schemes, converting the royalties from the technologies from Iviewit and through other anticompetitive tactics have kept Iviewit from market in classic RICO and ANTITRUST violations, including violations of Sherman and Clayton, as further defined in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit exhibited already herein. o The SEC should note here that Warner Bros et al. and many of those involved directly in these matters are also involved in DVD patent pooling schemes, including but not limited to, DVD6C Patent Pool. http://www.dvd6cla.com/offer_080904_New.html “On behalf of the DVD6C Licensing Group (DVD6C), we are pleased to offer your company a portfolio license that covers essential patents for certain DVD formats and +R/+RW Disc formats. The members of DVD6C — Hitachi Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd (Panasonic), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Toshiba Corporation, Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (JVC) and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. — collectively own hundreds of essential patents for these DVD formats and +R/+RW Disc formats.” o Whereby, similar to MPEGLA LLC’s illegal use of my technologies, DVD6C has similarly tied and bundled my technologies to their pools licenses, excluding me from royalties and then inuring royalties from others from my technologies directly from their membership position in the pool. o The SEC should note that the only Meltzer Intellectual Property attorney not to transfer to Proskauer at the time of acquisition was a one Raymond Joao, who initially with Rubenstein was represented as a Proskauer partner and who took initial patent disclosures with Rubenstein. In 1999-2000, based on early evidence surfacing, Joao allegedly was putting patents into his own name while sabotaging the Iviewit patents. Upon leaving Iviewit, Joao claimed publically that he had 90+ patents in his name and then went to work for Marc S. Dreier, recently prosecuted and convicted by the SEC for an alleged Ponzi scheme, as further evidenced and discussed later herein. · February 08, 2002 – Lamont letter to John D. Calkins (“Calkins”) ~ Senior Vice President New Media Business Development of Warner Bros., regarding stock issued to Warner Bros. employees Colter and Thagard for Advisory Board roles they accepted and also regarding their about face and breach of contracts.   · February 20, 2002 – Calkins Letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein. The SEC should note that opposite of Calkins’ claims in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record; it is instead Calkins and Smith attempting to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter opposite of the facts.   · February 27, 2002 – Lamont to Calkins about Warner Bros. Breach of Contracts, the SEC should note that while Lamont relies on the NDA, the February 15, 2001 SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, illustrated above, also has strong language about IP rights concerning the Iviewit technologies that also are violated. Also, take note that at this time in 2002, Warner Bros et al. knew of the breaches and formally were notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches, therefore they should have begun accounting for and disclosing the IP Liabilities at this time in their accounting reports, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.   · March 05, 2002 – Smith letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein. · November 20, 2002 - April 15, 2002 Letter by Lamont to Rubenstein Regarding Conversations with Warner Bros et al. presented to Rubenstein at his November 20, 2002 Deposition as already discussed herein. Pages 3-9 o Please note that the correspondence exhibited above refers to a notification issued to Warner Bros. at that time, which provided Warner Bros et al. further notice at that time that Cease and Desist letters and threatened litigation would be forthcoming regarding the technology infringements. Warner Bros et al. already was given notice of Breach of Contracts regarding the Intellectual Properties in prior communiqués exhibited and these letters certainly cite specific liabilities Warner was aware of going forward. Liabilities exist for Warner Bros et al. for their involvement in the alleged criminal RICO and ANTITRUST activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of investing $25 Million Dollars of capital to my companies. When doing their due diligence on a $12 Million Dollar Private Placement with Wachovia Securities, corporate and intellectual property frauds were uncovered, including discoveries by Smith regarding the Proskauer/Rubenstein/Joao filed patents and Calkins discovered initial evidence of corporate and bankruptcy frauds. At that time, Warner Bros et al. counsel, including Smith, employees and personnel became aware of frauds relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional information regarding similar corporate frauds was also being unearthed at that time in an audit being conducted by Arthur Andersen (“Andersen”) which will be discussed further herein. This information of what Smith and Calkin’s had discovered was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins as rational for not going forward on the Private Placement investment. Colter relayed that Warner Bros et al. uncovered fraud, including fraudulent statements made by Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner, former Iviewit counsel, regarding statements made in the Wachovia Private Placement whereby the bankruptcy and lawsuits were not disclosed that were later discovered. The Private Placement Memorandum completed by, billed for and circulated to potential Iviewit investors, including Warner Bros et al., by Proskauer. The Fraudulent statements by counsel and others contained in the Wachovia Private Placement, distributed for capital investment is cause for further SEC investigations of these criminal and SEC violations. Further questions arise as to Wachovia’s actions once they too were aware of the Fraud. Per Colter, Warner Bros et al. and Smith uncovered Intellectual Property Frauds involving fraudulent oaths to the US Patent Office and Worldwide Patent Authorities, which has in part led to suspension of my Intellectual Properties by the US Patent Commissioner pending investigations by the US Patent Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This series of events led to further uncovering Patent Fraud by my former counsel Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer and others that are subject to several state, federal and international ongoing investigations and legal actions. Investigations now include one by Harry I. Moatz (“Moatz”), Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office – Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”), charged with oversight of the Federal Patent Bar and patent attorney criminal issues. Moatz confirmed that W. Palm Beach FBI Special Agent, Stephen Lucchesi had joined his investigation of FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE allegedly committed by attorneys registered with the Federal Patent Bar. Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office that resulted in the exhibited herein patent suspensions. Moatz assembled a team of Patent Office Officials to aid me in getting the Intellectual Properties ready for suspension while investigations proceeded, as he removed all prior counsel from access to the IP. Amazingly, the patent office initial information which led to suspension proved that materially false information on the patents was not only given to the US Patent Office but that similar false information was given by Proskauer, Foley and Meltzer to Wachovia Securities for inclusion into the Private Placement Memorandum. Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by counsel Proskauer. Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO and ANTITRUST crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement, further false statements in a securities document. At the time, I retained independent counsel, Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire to investigate the corporate and patent fraud allegations and it was confirmed that there was a bankruptcy filing and lawsuit that were not disclosed to Wachovia or Iviewit’s Board and Management that were not part of the conspiratorial efforts. It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer and had stolen Intellectual Properties in them, this was learned from information discovered directly from the US Patent Office OED Investigations. Whereby, Arthur Andersen on or about this time, while auditing the Iviewit companies for the largest investor Crossbow Ventures of West Palm Beach Florida, whose investment funds were two-thirds SBA SBIC funds, found identical and similarly named companies to the Iviewit companies. The Fraud involving the stolen Small Business Administration Funds is under ongoing investigation with the SBA Inspector General’s office, the SEC through actions involving the Boca Raton Police Department (“Boca PD”) to be discussed in detail herein and other investigators. Per Colter, Smith discovered Fraud involving Kenneth Rubenstein, a Proskauer Rose law firm partner and sole patent evaluator for one of the largest infringers and criminal suspects in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and this was the supposed reason he want Rubenstein to re-opine. The SEC should note here that in addition to the US Patent Office OED investigation of Rubenstein, Rubenstein also is under investigation with other attorneys, including Joao, all ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of Five Justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department. Investigations ordered for “Conflicts of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety” when a Proskauer partner, Steven C. Krane, violated public office rules at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Krane caught handling Iviewit/Proskauer complaints, in order to block the complaints against his partner Rubenstein and his firm Proskauer, concealing the massive conflict he had as an Officer of the First Department Disciplinary Committee and other conflicts from other ethical public office positions he maintains in New York, while remaining a Proskauer partner. After discovery of the alleged Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, Iviewit learned later that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros., was now working with Rubenstein who was Iviewit’s former IP counsel, MPEGLA counsel and Warner Bros. counsel. Whereby, upon Smith’s request for Rubenstein to re-opine, Rubenstein claimed he was conflicted with Warner Bros. et al. and Iviewit and therefore could not opine, including even to reiterate his prior opinion, as already evidenced herein. Whereby Warner Bros. et al. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of the Binding Signed Agreements. The DVD6C, MPEGLA LLC and other patent pooling schemes, where Warner Bros. and Proskauer are major participants, for example in the DVD6C pool which are managed and monetized by Warner Bros., Proskauer and Rubenstein. The pooling schemes are alleged to be merely artifices to STEAL INVENTIONS FROM INVENTORS in violation of multiple Antitrust laws and have illegally precluded me from market in classic RICO and ANTITRUST activities, including death threats and a car bomb. “The Authoritative Blu-ray Disc (BD) FAQ: X. Copying Deterrents, Content Protection, and Intellectual Property” by Hugh Bennett - August 28, 2006 EMediaLive @   “On Oct. 20, 2009, One-Blue, LLC issued a call for patents with their essentiality to BD products sold in the United States to be evaluated by Proskauer, Rose LLP (an international law firm that performs similar determinations for MPEG LA, DVD6C and 4C). An initial meeting of essential patent holders is planned for Nov. 6, 2009 in Japan. However, it is far from clear how successful this effort will be with respect to its ultimate participants as well as the scope and terms of any possibly consensual programs.” and “Seeking to avoid the complexities of DVD’s multi-agent system (DVD6C, 4C, 3C, 1C, etc.), MPEG LA began working in 2005 with BD’s multiple stakeholders to establish itself a one-stop essential Blu-ray patent licensing authority. Those who participated in this effort included: CyberLink, Dell, Disney, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi, Philips Electronics, LG Electronics, Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Pioneer, Samsung, Sanyo, Sharp, Sonic Solutions, Sony, TDK, Victor Company of Japan (JVC) and Warner Home Video.” The Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in and inuring benefit from are also using the technologies in violation of Signed and Binding Contracts and Licensing Agreements, admittedly. Yet, since that time Warner Bros. have also excluded Iviewit from market tying and bundling the technologies in their licensing schemes, again in classic RICO and ANTITRUST activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 years of knowing infringement and the Massive Liabilities to Shareholders that mounts daily. 2009-2010 Recent Communications with Warner Bros et al. The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between the prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. communications and contracts, that during the gap I was nevertheless actively pursuing my rights contrary to Smith’s claim that nothing has been done. Factually, I have given similar information to several state, federal and international investigators, House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, many state and federal courts and more over the last several years. During the gap in time, I was also forced to flee my home several times for my family’s safety, including from death threats from Mr. Brian Utley on behalf of the law firms Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner and then from actual Attempted Murder of my family. Attempted Murder through a Car Bombing of my family minivan in Del Ray Beach, FL., images of the Car Bombing can be found on the www.iviewit.tv homepage. From: Eliot Ivan Bernstein  Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 7:52 AM To: The Honorable Glenn Fine - Inspector General Department of Justice, Lonnie Davis Miami Field Office; Inspector General Department of Justice; The Honorable Glenn Fine ~ Inspector General @ United States Department of Justice (____________ @usdoj.gov) Cc: 'Michael Thomas ~ VP Consumer & Legal Affairs, General Counsel @ Volvo Cars of North America Inc. (______@volvocars.com)'; 'Stefan Jacoby ~ President and CEO @ Volvo Car Corporation (______@volvocars.com)'; 'Stefan Jacoby c/o Jeanette Rider @ Volvo Car Corporation (______@volvocars.com)'; Elisabet Wenzlaff ~ Senior Vice President and General Counsel @ Volvo Car Corporation (______@volvocars.com); Jill S. Bilanchon, Esq. ~ Vice President / Assistant General Counsel @ AutoNation, Inc. (­­­­______@autonation.com); 'Jeanette Rider c/o Renee Liden @ Volvo Car Corporation (_____@volvocars.com)'; 'Renee Liden @ Volvo Car Corporation (______@volvocars.com)'; 'Doug Speck ~ Acting Senior Vice President - Marketing, Sales and Customer Service @ Volvo Car Corporation (______@volvocars.com)'; 'Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esquire (_______@cprogers.com)'; 'Marc R. Garber, Esquire @ Flaster Greenberg P.C.'; 'Michele M. Mulrooney Esq. - Jackoway Tyerman Wertheimer Austen Mandelbaum & Morris (________@JTWAMM.com)'; 'Andy Dietz Subject: RE: IVIEWIT INVESTIGATION - VOLVO NOTICE OF LIABILITY for CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS and CIVIL COMPLAINTS NAMING VOLVO CORPORATION N. AMERICA/SWEDEN/AUTONATION LIABILITIES IN RICO & ANTITRUST LAWSUIT & CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS Dear Lonnie Davis, Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Justice Intake Office, Attached herein, in a PDF file and contained in the letter below, is information about an alleged Vehicle and Vehicle Record tampering by Marrone Volvo/Autonation/Huizenga Holdings, Volvo Cars of North America and Volvo of Sweden, which may have been a further attempt to MURDER my family through another instance of alleged Vehicular Tampering while our car was being serviced.  Please make this communiqué part of the Ongoing Department of Justice Investigation into the Iviewit/Eliot Bernstein investigation, which also includes an attempted murder via a vehicle CAR BOMBING in Fl., while the prior minivan was in for servicing.  Of major concern is that it has only recently been learned that one of the main perpetrators in the Iviewit/Eliot Bernstein RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit and the Criminal Complaints filed with the DOJ and others, Mr. Wayne Huizenga, is intimately involved and owned the dealership, Marrone Volvo/Autonation/Huizenga Holdings, where this new Vehicle Tampering issue has occurred.  Mr. Huizenga is a CENTRAL CONSPIRATOR in my RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit and that predicate act of Attempted Murder cited in my Amended Complaint in that matter. Another point of concern, is that once Marrone Volvo and Volvo North America were found to be tampering with Vehicle records and falsifying claims of a Certified Vehicle Inspection by a Volvo Certified Engineer regarding the safety of the vehicle, the General Counsel for Mr. Huizenga’s organization, a one Jill Bilanchone, Esq., attempted to claim that she was not conflicted in responding to these matters for her employer, Marrone Volvo/Autonation/Huizenga Holdings, despite the fact that Wayne Huizenga owns/owned Marrone Volvo/Autonation/Huizenga Holdings and was the founder and listed in the Board of Director page.  Bilanchone refused to sign a conflict of interest disclosure and acted on behalf of all the corporations knowing of her conflicts with Mr. Huizenga’s organizations, instead of retaining outside NON CONFLICTED legal counsel to respond to the matters. After realizing my car was not only not getting serviced properly since almost day one by Marrone/Autonation/Huizenga Holdings but that Huizenga owned Marrone, I tendered several letters to both Marrone Volvo, Volvo North America and Volvo Sweden, which advised them of the criminal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit in NY that Huizenga is a central defendant in and that Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin “legally related” my lawsuit to a New York Supreme Court Whistleblower lawsuit and that these alleged Vehicle tampering issues represented legal liabilities MarroneVolvo/Autonation/Huizenga Holdings, Volvo Cars of North America and Volvo Sweden.  Instead of having Counsel reply to the myriad of Civil and Criminal allegations against the corporations and officers and employees of the corporations, I received a call last week from Erika Kirsch, one of the main alleged perpetrators named in the documents and charged with falsifying Service Records and Vehicle Engineering Reports and despite admitting and acknowledging that she was aware of Criminal and Civil charges alleged against her in the matters and the conflict this posed in her contacting me regarding legal liabilities of the Corporations and their employees, she maintained that she was representing the legal matters for the corporations.  I am unclear if Erika, the Executive Management Specialist for Volvo Cars of North America, has legal standing to respond to these very legal matters relating to massive potential liabilities for the corporations and executives involved or if any of the corporations could not retain legal counsel due to conflicts and thus had Erika, a named party in the complaints, respond as no one else could be found to continue to perpetrate the crimes involved in covering up the matter.  I have notified all of the parties of their liabilities and that they were being criminally complained of and would be added to all ongoing and future Civil and Criminal actions relating to these matters. Finally, Marrone Volvo/Autonation/Huizenga Holdings, Volvo North America and Volvo Sweden have refused repeated requests to provide FULL VEHICLE RECORDS to me, which I believe is mandatory under law and this again imparts something afoul.  To date, I have not received the signed Certified Engineering Report that supposedly was done and is mentioned in the attached Adobe PDF file either and the executives at Volvo, including legal counsel for both Volvo Cars of North America and Volvo Sweden, have refused to take my calls or respond, other than through Erika, to letters tendered to them and their counsel.  I have more evidence, including conversations, messages and letters regarding these matters not contained herein and will be submitting that information for your review after analysis but please take this letter as a FORMAL Criminal Complaint for this matter to be added to all my DOJ and DOJ OIG investigations ongoing.  I will be contacting you shortly to further discuss these matters.  Again, thank you for all of your time, effort and consideration of these life threatening matters regarding the Iviewit/Eliot Bernstein matters, I will be forwarding this letter to several other criminal investigators with ongoing investigations and will copy you on those.  I have copied those involved from the corporations named in the complaints as further service to them of the criminal and civil notice of liabilities in criminal and civil complaints being filed against them for reporting to their auditors, insurance carriers, bondholders, shareholders and any other party they are obligated to notice of such or any party who may incur liabilities in these matters.  Please feel free to call me if you have questions or need additional information.  Eliot Bernstein [Link to free download described pdf attachment coming soon].

The Greatest Patent Story Ever Told - Episode 1, The Greatest Patent Story Ever Told - Episode 2 Uploaded by YouTube Channel PSLAMONT on Apr 11, 2007 - CEO Lamont: Patent Sabotage-Theft-Seige on the USPTO and EPO - Episode 1<br>http://youtu.be/QYwg2kCMClY  and http://youtu.be/ORICTNG4sVA Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Testimony NY Senate Judiciary Part 1 Sen John Sampson Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Testimony NY Senate Judiciary Part 2 Sen John Sampson eliotbernstein 02132012 Republished www.HireLyrics.org peoplesparty case study page Permission www.iviewit.tv Owner Inventor Eliot Ivan Berstein 102709 Letter New York Senate Judiciary Committe Chairman Senator John L. Sampson Letter re Reardon and Friedberg Complaints I-VIEW-IT  HOLDINGS, INC. I-VIEW-IT  TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Eliot I. Bernstein Founder & Inventor Direct Dial: (561) 245-8588 (o)                      (561) 886-7628 (c) VIA - EMAIL Tuesday, October 27, 2009 Senator John L. Sampson Chairman New York Senate Judiciary Committee 506 Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 12247 Re:      Whistleblower Allegations of Criminal Activity at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Exposed in US Federal Court Requiring The Judiciary Committee’s Immediate Action & Response of Roy Reardon to the Request of Chairman, John L. Sampson Regarding Disciplinary Complaints Filed a the First Department, including but not limited to; A. “New Complaints”             1. Roy L. Reardon, Esq. – Waiting Docket # Since February 2009             2. Alan W. Friedberg, Esq. – Waiting Docket # Since February 2009 B. “2008 Complaints” Matters of Attorney Complaints Docket #2008-0756, appears to attempt to merge multiple complaints into one docket number, waiting formal individual docket #’s from NYAG.             3. Proskauer Rose, LLP – First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008             4. Foley & Lardner - First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008             5. Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008             6. Joanna F. Smith, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008             7. Todd C. Norbitz, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008             8. Anne B. Sekel, Esq. - First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2008 C. “Old Complaints” Unpublished First Dept. Court Orders for Investigation             M3198 - Steven C. Krane & Proskauer Rose             M2820 - Kenneth Rubenstein & Proskauer Rose and Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolfe and Schlissel             M3212 Raymond A. Joao             Transferred by Unpublished COURT Orders, by Unanimous Consent of five First Dept Justices for Conflict of Interest and the Appearance of Impropriety to the Second Department.  The Second Department failed to conduct formal investigations ordered by First Dept. and the First Dept. failed to ever follow up on their Orders)             9.   Thomas Cahill Special Inquiry No. 2004.1122 (former 1st Dept Chief Counsel) – Ongoing investigation by Martin Gold.             10. Steven C. Krane docket #2004.1883 (1st Dept Officer, former NYSBA President & Proskauer partner)             11. Kenneth Rubenstein docket #2003.0531 (Proskauer partner)             12. Raymond A. Joao docket #2003-0352             13. Proskauer Rose, LLP - First Dep. Failed to formally docket since 2003             14. Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Schlissel - First Dep. failed to formally docket since 2003 Dear Chairman John L. Sampson, I.      Introduction I write to you as a follow up to your request to Alan W. Friedberg ( Friedberg ), Chief Counsel of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department ( First Dept ) Departmental Disciplinary Committee ( DDC ) to provide you with status and information regarding Concealed Disciplinary Complaints at the September 24, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearing you held, as Friedberg has responded to me, instead of you.  As you may recall, at the beginning of my testimony at that hearing on Court Corruption in New York, you asked Friedberg to provide you with information regarding what happened to complaints filed against Friedberg himself and Roy L. Reardon ( Reardon ), Chairman of the DDC[1] by myself, almost 8 months earlier.  II.      NY Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee Letter dated October 07, 2009 to Eliot Bernstein in response to a Request for Information by Senator John L. Sampson, Chair, NY Senate Judiciary Committee as Evidence of Further Violations of Attorney Conduct Codes, Violations of the Rules and Regulations of the DDC and Violations of Law Senator Sampson, I was stunned to get a direct reply from Reardon on October 07, 2009 attached herein as Exhibit 1, skirting your request for information and without even a courtesy carbon copy of the letter to your office, a letter regarding what happened to CONCEALED complaints against Reardon and Friedberg.  The letter again has Reardon handling his own complaint and attempting to dismiss the complaint against himself and other DDC members, a violation of Attorney Conduct Codes, the Rules Regulating the DDC and Law in a multiplicity of ways, including the obvious conflict created by one reviewing ones own complaint and acting upon it.  As you may remember from my testimony at the September 24, 2009 Judiciary Committee hearing, the DDC is a defendant in my Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit[2] marked legally related to the Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson ( Anderson ) and the DDC as a defendant in that lawsuit have representative counsel, the New York Attorney General ( NYAG ).  The DDC as a named defendant in my lawsuit, which the filed complaints directly relate to, makes it inappropriate, highly unethical and illegal for the DDC to be directly contacting me or handling the complaints versus having the matters handled through their retained counsel, Monica Connell ( Connell ) of the NYAG.  As it is inappropriate for me, acting as Pro Se legal counsel, to be contacting parties directly who have counsel, I worked with DDC counsel the NYAG to have the complaints transferred to NON-CONFLICTED investigators.  Connell directed me to file the complaints with the DDC stating the complaints would be moved once filed and that no First Dept or DDC members would even review the materials due to their OBVIOUS CONFLICTS but that procedurally the complaints initially had to be filed at the DDC.  Yet, defying ethics and their counsel’s arrangements with me, the DDC interceded and attempted to dismiss the complaints against other defendants in the lawsuit and now even themselves in what defies logic, ethics and law. More despicable is the insanity of Reardon in then attempting to handle and dismiss the complaints against himself and Friedberg in the current letter, complaints resulting from their conflicted actions dismissing the complaints against the other defendants in the same lawsuit they are defendants in; in what constitutes a CONFLICT OF INTEREST that defines the word CONFLICT.  A CONFLICT creating an APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY that acts to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and DENY DUE PROCESS, leading to a loss of faith in Judiciary System of New York[3].  The audacity of attempting to dismiss complaints against oneself is par with the course for the Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department where it has recently been exposed in the ongoing Whistleblower Federal Lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson ( Anderson ) v. The State of New York that the DDC has a “CLEANER”.  A “CLEANER” named Naomi F. Goldstein who is the Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC, allegedly fixing disciplinary complaints for the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney, according to sworn testimony by inside Whistleblower Anderson, a former Staff Attorney of the New York Supreme Court in the trial before the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ( Scheindlin )[4].  In a scene more reminiscent of the Gotti trial, which simultaneously was being heard on the 26th Floor of the Federal Courthouse, the DDC trial on the 15th Floor produced allegations of a “Cleaner” fixing disciplinary complaints, in the Department Reardon and Friedberg are Senior Officers.  The highest office of the Legal System, the Regulator of the Legal Profession demanding the highest ethics, appears to be run mob style, complete with ASSAULTS on Christine Anderson, as confirmed in Scheindlin’s court. Of course, Reardon should have responded directly to your offices as you requested him to but instead choose to ignore your request for information and sent me the attached letter instead, which now causes even more problems.  In the letter, again attempting to exculpate himself from complaints against himself that he has CONCEALED since February of 2009, Reardon continues his pattern of UNETHICAL and ILLEGAL behavior that defies ethics, continuing directly to handle complaints against him, Friedberg and other defendants.  Now attempting to deny they were aware of the complaints, although referencing the FORMAL COMPLAINT filed against them in February.  Reardon’s letter attempting to dismiss the complaints he has CONCEALED against himself since February 09, 2009[5] by saying a FORMAL COMPLAINT against him he did not feel was a complaint, defying the Rules Regulating the DDC, the Attorney Conduct Code, including but not limited to, DR (Disciplinary Rule) 1-102A 4 and 5, NY Penal Laws (see below) and Law.  As you can see from the attached response of Reardon in Exhibit 1, he attempts now to claim that my February 09, 2009 FORMAL COMPLAINT did not constitute a complaint against himself and Friedberg.  Still they failed to respond in any way until your request, more indicative of CONCEALMENT, since Reardon now admits receiving the FORMAL COMPLAINT in February.   The denial that the letter was a FORMAL COMPLAINT coming despite direct language in the letter claiming that it was a FORMAL COMPLAINT, to provide docketing numbers and to pass the new complaints to a NON-CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY.  Yet obviously, Mr. Reardon can no longer comprehend reality, read or is attempting to set up an insanity or illiteracy defense.  In fact, Reardon claims in the attached letter, “We checked our records and found no substantive disciplinary complaint from you against me or Mr. Friedberg filed in 2009. We do have a fax letter from you dated February 9, 2009 which, among several issues, raises questions concerning possible conflicts by Committee Staff and Members in the handling of certain complaints brought by you. We did not deem that letter to be a formal complaint against me and Mr. Friedberg.”             My letter Reardon References of February 09, 2009[6] in fact states specifically the following, “Mr. Reardon and Mr. Friedberg, for your conflicted responses and violation of the First Department Rules and Attorney Code of Conduct, I welcome you to the Iviewit affairs with formal New Complaints against both of you with your department and ask that those be forwarded to your counsel the NYAG to have non conflicted parties review the matters versus your highly conflicted offices. [Emphasis Added]  The New Complaints are to include anyone else in your offices or on the Committee who took part in any review and decision on the 2008 Complaints filed, as indicated in your letters.  Please provide the appropriate information regarding the members involved.” And further in that very same February 2009 letter, “Mssrs. Reardon & Friedberg, please take this letter as a formal complaint against both of you personally and all those who partook in these matters and please docket the New Complaints according to the established procedural rules and laws. [Emphasis Added]  Mssrs. Reardon & Friedberg, it is surprising that you are aware of the Old Complaints filed at your department dating back to on or about 2001-2005 that you mention in your letter, which were filed in your office by the Iviewit companies and me.  The Old Complaints were transferred to the Second Department as you astutely noted; however, you fail in your letter to mention that they were transferred due to a finding of the Appearance of Impropriety & Conflicts, in those attorney complaints.  In notifying authorities of your newest unethical actions and rule violations, please provide me with all of the following information so that I may formally instigate further oversight of your unlawful and unethical behavior: [Emphasis Added] 1.         List of all reviewers or employees who handled these 2008 Complaints, including all Committee members you reference in your letter, 2.         Attach complete copies of the files for each separate 2008 Complaint filed and for the Old Complaints filed in your offices, 3.         Provide individual 2008 Complaint DOCKET numbers, your letter only indicates one 2008-0756, for the following complained of parties: a.         The Law Offices of Proskauer Rose LLP b.         Foley & Lardner LLP c.         Gregg M. Mashberg, Esq. d.         Joanna F. Smith, Esq. e.         Todd C. Norbitz f.          Anne B. Sekel g.         Alan W. Friedberg, Esq. (provide Special Inquiry #) [Emphasis Added] h.         Roy Reardon, Esq. (provide Special Inquiry #) [Emphasis Added] Rules applicable to the New Complaint against Reardon & Friedberg shall include, but not be limited to, the following...” It would be nearly impossible for Mr. Reardon to make the claim that he did not see that this letter was a FORMAL COMPLAINT against Mr. Friedberg and himself as it could be no clearer and fully complies with complaint procedures of the DDC.  Again, although citing my February 09, 2009 COMPLAINT, Reardon fails to reckon with the fact that the COMPLAINT clearly demands that he not touch the complaints as arranged by his counsel the NYAG and yet he disregards the request to have the NYAG move the complaints due to the DDC conflict as a defendant.  Brazen, Stupid, Illiterate perhaps but any way you slice it, Reardon’s response is Conflicted and as such a Violation of his Department Rules, the Attorney Code of Conduct and Law, together causing OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE and violations of, including but not limited to, the Penal Laws cited below: NY Penal Laws § 195.00 Official Misconduct.     A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with intent to obtain a benefit or deprive another person of a benefit:     1. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized; or     2. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.   NY Penal Law § 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree.     A  person  is  guilty  of  tampering  with public records in the first degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any  record or other written instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.     Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D felony. NY Penal Law § 175.20 Tampering with public records in the second degree.     A  person  is  guilty  of  tampering with public records in the second degree when, knowing that he does not have the authority of anyone entitled to grant it, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any record  or  other written instrument filed with, deposited in,or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.     Tampering  with  public  records  in  the  second  degree is a Class A  misdemeanor NY Penal Law § 175.25 Tampering with public records in the first degree.     A  person  is  guilty  of  tampering  with public records in the first degree when, knowing that he does  not  have  the  authority  of  anyone entitled to grant it, and with intent to defraud, he knowingly removes, mutilates, destroys, conceals, makes a false entry in or falsely  alters any  record  or  other  written  instrument filed with, deposited in, or otherwise constituting a record of a public office or public servant.     Tampering with public records in the first degree is a class D felony.   III.      Request for Oversight and Intervention by the NY Senate Judiciary Committee to Procure and Take Action to; Formulate Requests for the NYAG, The US Attorney and the NY District Attorney to convene Grand Juries to Investigate the Whistleblower Criminal Allegations of Whitewashing at the First Department and DDC;  Formulate Requests for the NYAG, The US Attorney and the NY District Attorney to convene Grand Juries to Investigate the Offices of the US Attorney and the NY District Attorney based on the Criminal Allegations of Whitewashing of Complaints for those Agencies in US Federal Court; Formulate Requests for the NYAG to convene a Grand Jury to Investigate the Office of the NYAG for their failure to follow Public Officer Rules and more. Now apparent is that the NYAG and the DDC cannot refrain from violating law to cover up their prior crimes in these matters by acting in conflict after conflict, in violation of virtually all of the attorney codes of conduct, public office rules and regulations and law.  Violating the very ethical conduct, they are in charge of enforcing and upholding.  Formally through this communiqué, I request that your offices request the NYAG and District Attorney to now convene grand juries or similar regulatory bodies, to investigate and cease the mass of conflicts, cease the violations of the Rules and Regulations of the First Department and others, cease the violations of attorney conduct codes and cease the violations of law.  I also request that the Judiciary Committee force all prior and current disciplinary complaints filed by myself at the First or Second Departments transferred to a non-conflicted third party for IMMEDIATE Investigation.  As you can see from the letter correspondences herein, DDC Public Officials already found once in these matters acting in Conflict, causing the Appearance of Impropriety and in those matters ORDERED FOR INVESTIGATION for CONFLICT OF INTEREST and THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.  Again, we find officers of the DDC handling complaints against themselves, a pattern that has led to voluminous complaints against the various culpable parties in that department.  Please have Mssrs: Friedberg and Reardon address your offices directly regarding these matters as requested and not myself, as again, it is only proper for me to have contact with them through their counsel, the NYAG.  IV.      Whistleblower Federal Lawsuit Reveals Criminal Allegations of Assault, Whitewashing of Complaints for the US Attorney, District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney, Favored Law Firms and Lawyers and more Requiring Judiciary Committee Action On a more damning note, in Federal Court, under Federal Judge Scheindlin, whom herself termed the Anderson case a “Whistleblower” lawsuit, information alleging criminal activities including Whitewashing of Complaints and Assault were levied.  Whitewashing by former DDC Chief Counsel, Thomas J. Cahill ( Cahill ), Deputy Chief Counsel Sherry K. Cohen, Deputy Chief Counsel Naomi Goldstein (AKA “The Cleaner”), former First Department Clerk of the Court Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe and others, now entered in the record via sworn testimony of Anderson in the matters.  Based on Anderson’s Whistleblowing allegations that Goldstein ILLEGALLY fixes complaints for the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney through criminal Whitewashing and more, in turn, causing Obstruction, makes it now MANDATORY by Judicial Cannons, Public Office Rules & Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law that the appropriate authorities are formally notified and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS in mass begin.  All those now aware of these CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS, including Scheindlin, the NYAG that was present when the claims were made in open court, the US Attorney, the District Attorney and the Assistant District Attorney who are named by Anderson and whereby all of these officials are now all legally obligated to begin immediate criminal investigations into these most serious criminal allegations.  Investigations should include the Inspector General of the Department of Justice, the Inspector General or other such regulatory body(ies) for the New York Supreme Court, the Inspector General for the New York Attorney General and the District Attorney or any other investigatory body(ies) you may convene or summon.  As well, the Judiciary Committee was fully informed of the CRIMINAL allegations levied by Anderson in her riveting testimony before the first NY Senate Judiciary Committee you held whereby similar CRIMINAL ACTIVITY was revealed in that hearing and therefore the NY Senate Judiciary Committee has obligations to now report and or take appropriate actions having such knowledge of these CRIMES.  The NYAG is probably a bit conflicted at this point in time to become involved due to the conflicts caused by the NYAG representing the Anderson state defendants, instead of investigating them based on the Whistleblower allegations (again as defined by Federal Judge Scheindlin) through the Public Integrity Unit charged with these investigations.  Due to the Obvious Conflict, it may be a bad idea to summon the NYAG now to investigate their current clients as this would only compound the conflicts.  The NYAG’s prior failure to initiate investigations knowing of these Whistleblower claims and instead embarking on a defense of the accused public officials, may make it more applicable to begin formal investigations of the NYAG as part of the ever-growing cover up at the highest level of the New York Courts and Prosecutorial Offices.  NY Executive Law: § 63. General duties. The attorney-general shall: 1.      Prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings in which the state is interested, and have charge and control of all the legal business of the departments and bureaus of the state, or of any office thereof which requires the services of attorney or counsel, in order to protect the interest of the state…   The NYAG instead of advising their state defendant clients to get counsel due to the Conflict of Interest and Legal Obligations to Protect the Public instead has failed to do anything but put up a sham defense in Federal Court to protect the accused, failing his duties to the Public and failing, Public Officers Rule 17 2(b) (b) Subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the employee shall be entitled to be represented by the attorney general, provided, however, that the employee shall be entitled to representation by private counsel of his choice in any civil judicial proceeding whenever the attorney general determines based upon his investigation and review of the facts and circumstances of the case that representation by the attorney general would be inappropriate, or whenever a court of competent jurisdiction, upon appropriate motion or by a special proceeding, determines that a conflict of interest exists and that the employee is entitled to be represented by private counsel of his choice. In fact, this conflict is further insipid in that it blocks due process by blocking out investigation by criminal investigators in the Anderson matters, as the NYAG has conflicted his offices from their public obligation to investigate the public officials they represent.  This block acts to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE through CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC OFFICE RULES & REGULATIONS and LAW.  Finally, in reviewing the rest of Mr. Reardon’s recent letter we find further insane claims such as, “Your previous complaints against former Chief Counsel Thomas Cahill and Mr. Friedberg had been addressed in my January 27, 2009 letter to you. That letter concluded the investigation[7].” [Footnote Added] In fact, the letter was not addressed to me at all, or even carbon copied me and instead sent to an Iviewit company at an unauthorized address.  I have no information such company exists in any form at that address and have reported this fact to the NYAG, including information regarding P. Stephen Lamont whom the letter is addressed to and whom I’ve asked the NYAG to begin investigation regarding potential securities and other frauds[8].  The claim by Reardon is further absurd in that the complaint against Cahill was part of the complaints transferred by the First Department for further investigation and an integral part of the complaints transferred by First Department COURT ORDER for INVESTIGATION.  Per DDC Rules, the complaint against Cahill was transferred for SPECIAL INQUIRY to Martin Gold and has been ongoing for several years and now part of the Federal RICO Complaint I filed.  The audacity of Mr. Reardon to NOW, after years, try and usurp that process in the middle of the lawsuit and dismiss the complaints against defendant Cahill again is wholly outside the Rules and Procedures of their Department and wholly unethical due to their conflicts as defendants in the lawsuit.  In yet another absurd attempt to deny reality in his October 7, 2009 letter, Reardon attempts to diffuse the fact that my COMPLAINT of February 09, 2009 was a formal request for reconsideration of their illegal and conflicted decision to dismiss complaints against the attorneys acting in conflict before the Scheindlin court.  This denial that the dismissal was not properly appealed for reconsideration is a further attempt to try to cover up the fact that he did not follow the Rules and Regulations regarding reconsideration as he CONCEALED the factual COMPLAINT from February until your request for him to give you status.   Now Reardon claims, “With regard to the "2008" complaints against various attorneys, our January 12, 2009 closing letter advises that you may seek reconsideration of the dismissal by submitting a written request within 30 days. Although we did not deem your February 9, 2009 letter to be such a request, should you wish to have your complaint against those attorneys, and the Committee's decision to close it, reviewed by another Committee member in accordance with our rules, please let us know (in writing sent via regular or overnight mail). Although you may continue to contact our office by fax, we require that you mail a hard copy of any faxed material and that it be signed by you.” Yet had Reardon read the February 09, 2009 letter I sent, it clearly states, “Also, we are filing this letter response to not only reinvestigate the dismissal of case Docket #2008-0756, docketed for an unknown person referenced in Friedberg’s letter as the only docket for 6 of the 2008 Complaints [Emphasis Added] but to also complain that the same attorney’s continue to act in conflict at the Court of Appeals, constituting further violations of the Attorney Code of Conduct.” Reardon’s attempts at explaining why his office did not take this as a request to appeal their conflicted and illegal dismissal timely and instead chose to bury it for 8 months is more than obvious, acts as further criminal activity in violation of the Attorney Conduct Code, the DDC Rules and Regulations and Law. V.      Conclusion Therefore, to Preclude further violations of law, I, Eliot I. Bernstein, make the following formal requests to your offices for action to stop this outrageous, unethical and illegal behavior by: 1.      Compelling the NYAG to immediately convene a Grand Jury to investigate the NYAG offices, the US Attorney offices, the District and Assistant District Attorney offices, the First Department and the DDC, all fingered by Anderson.  2.      Compelling the District Attorney to immediately convene a Grand Jury to investigate the NYAG offices, the US Attorney offices, the District and Assistant District Attorney offices, the First Department and the DDC, all fingered by Anderson.  3.      Beginning a Senate Judiciary Committee Task Force IMMEDIATELY to begin investigation and review of all those courts and court personnel who are implicated in these matters, including but not limited to: a.       The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department b.      The Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee c.       Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the DDC d.      Sherry K. Cohen, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC e.       Naomi Goldstein ~ “The Cleaner”, Deputy Chief Counsel of the DDC f.       David Spokony, Deputy Clerk First Department g.      Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Former Clerk of the First Department and current Clerk of the New York Court of Appeals Southern District h.      Justice Angela M. Mazzarelli of the Appellate Division, First Department 4.      Forcing removal of all of my disciplinary complaints from the DDC for IMMEDIATE INVESTIGATION by NON-CONFLICTED INVESTIGATORS this time, especially where Anderson named my companies and my complaints filed with the DDC in her original federal lawsuit and I quote from Anderson’s Original Lawsuit on Page 24-25, “96. … Upon information and belief, sources within the DDC stated that Plaintiff posed a threat of further disclosures, since Cahill and Cohen knew that Plaintiff was aware of other misconduct on their part. 97. Upon information and belief, defendants also state that the timing of the Plaintiff’s abrupt firing was connected to the newly circulated revelations concerning Cahill's status as an individually named defendant in a lawsuit entitled In the Matter of Complaints Against Attorneys and Counselors-At-Law; Kenneth Rubenstein – Docket 2003.0531; Raymond Joao – Docket 2003.0532; Steven C. Krane - Docket Pending Review By Paul J. Curran, Esq. - Thomas J. Cahill J. Cahill- Docket Pending By Special Counsel Martin R. Gold On Advisement of Paul J. Curran (Separate Motion Attached); and the Law Firm of Proskauer Rose, LLP; Eliot I. Bernstein, Pro Se and P. Stephen Lamont Both Individually and On Behalf of Shareholders of: Iviewit Corporation, et al, Petitioner. That lawsuit was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division: First Department.” Especially, where prior misconduct by DDC Officers led to Unanimous Consent by Five First Department Justices for INVESTIGATION of CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS & THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY several years ago, revolving around these same matters, which were further BURIED and COVERED UP by CONFLICTED members of the SECOND DEPARTMENT DDC and the SECOND DEPARTMENT. 5.      Beginning investigations into the Second Department and Second Department DDC for their illegal obstructive behavior in defiance of the First Department Court Orders and beginning similar Grand Jury and Judiciary Committee Task Force actions as those stated in 1 & 2 above. 6.      Immediately suspending all First Department and Second Department Officers from handling complaints against themselves or the complaints of the legally related cases to Christine C. Anderson that legally are related by Judge Scheindlin marking them so. 7.      Immediately oversight the US Federal Court of Scheindlin to force compliance with Judicial Cannons and Law that compel that court to now notify the proper authorities of the CRIMINAL ELEMENTS of the Anderson claims and need for immediate INVESTIGATION by all applicable oversight authorities. Please formally and in writing respond to this letter with exact language as to what your offices can do to intercede in these matters. Respectfully Yours, _____________________ Eliot I. Bernstein Founder & Inventor Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL Uview.com, Inc. – DL Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL I.C., Inc. – FL Iviewit.com LLC – DL Iviewit LLC – DL Iviewit Corporation – FL Iviewit, Inc. – FL Iviewit, Inc. – DL Iviewit Corporation cc/ec: The Honorable Barack Hussein Obama II President United States of America The Honorable Glenn A. Fine Inspector General United States Department of Justice The Honorable John Conyers Jr. Chairman House Judiciary Committee The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein Senate Judiciary Committee Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr. United States Attorney General US Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 The Honorable Elena Kagan Solicitor General US Department of Justice Robert S. Mueller, III. Director Federal Bureau of Investigation Candice M. Will Assistant Director, Office of Professional Responsibility Federal Bureau of Investigation The Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin, United States District Court ~ Southern District of New York The Honorable Harry I. Moatz Director, Office of Enrollment & Discipline United States Patent & Trademark Office Todd J. Zinser Inspector General United States Department of Commerce David Kappos Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent & Trademark Office John J. Doll Commissioner for Patents United States Patent and Trademark Office David L. Gouvaia Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Mary L. Schapiro Chairperson United States Securities and Exchange Commission Peter L. McClintock Acting Inspector General Small Business Administration Chris P. Mercer President Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (epi) Steven Michael Cohen Counselor and Chief of Staff for Andrew Cuomo New York Office of the Attorney General Joseph M. Demarest, Jr. FBI Assistant Director in Charge of the New York Division, 26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10278-0004 David A. Paterson Governor New York State New York Senate Judiciary Committee Members: sampson@senate.state.ny.us, onorato@senate.state.ny.us, schneiderman@schneiderman.org, schneiderman@senate.state.ny.us, hassellt@senate.state.ny.us, diaz@senate.state.ny.us, jdklein@senate.state.ny.us, eadams@senate.state.ny.us, espada@senate.state.ny.us, breslin@senate.state.ny.us, dilan@senate.state.ny.us, savino@senate.state.ny.us, perkins@senate.state.ny.us, maziarz@senate.state.ny.us, jdefranc@senate.state.ny.us, volker@senate.state.ny.us, saland@senate.state.ny.us, lavalle@senate.state.ny.us, bonacic@senate.state.ny.us, winner@senate.state.ny.us, nozzolio@senate.state.ny.us, lanza@senate.state.ny.us, ranz@senate.state.ny.us, spotts@senate.state.ny.us. Hon. Andrew Cuomo Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol Albany, NY 12224-0341 and 120 Broadway New York City, NY 10271-0332  Monica Connell, Esq. Assistant Attorney General - Division of State Counsel Litigation Bureau, State of New York Office of the Attorney General 120 Broadway New York City, NY 10271-0332 Thomas P. DiNapoli Comptroller State of New York Robert Morris Morgenthau District Attorney of New York County One Hogan Place New York, NY 10013 212-335-9000 Lovett & Bellatoni 37A Saw Mill River Road, RT 9A Hawthorne, NY 10532 Select Press Select Iviewit Shareholders and Patent Interest Holders Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s) Uniform Resource Locator(s)             All Uniform Resource Locators ( URL ) incorporated in entirety by reference herein cmb/eib Iviewit Holdings, Inc./Iviewit Technologies, Inc. 2753 N.W. 34th St. Boca Raton, Florida 33434-3459 (561) 245.8588 (o) / (561) 886.7628 (c) / (561) 245-8644 (f) iviewit@iviewit.tv - www.iviewit.tv [1] Senator Sampson request for Friedberg to reply to him @ 04:02:30 in the following video of the September 24, 2009 hearing http://www.livestream.com/nysenate/ondemand/pla_cce9d795-b7f2-4996-8fbd-a4c848aba2bd?initthumburl=http://mogulus-user-files.s3.amazonaws.com/chnysenate/2009/09/24/3ccbb0fd-f73d-4733-9ae5-2aac6d59f1ac_8530.jpg&playeraspectwidth=4&playeraspectheight=3   [2] Iviewit Amended Complaint - RICO http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf [3] http://www.halt.org/about_halt/in_the_news/2007/north_country_gazette_20071110.php and http://www.halt.org/jip/dir.php?cid=14  and http://www.halt.org/reform_projects/lawyer_accountability/discipline_system   [4] http://www.free-press-release.com/news-andrew-cuomo-ag-protect-the-people-and-christine-anderson-and-not-crooked-lawyers-and-corrupt-government-employees-1255918900.html and http://www.free-press-release.com/news-gotti-trial-on-26th-floor-nyc-federal-court-was-mirrored-by15th-floor-testimony-of-the-cleaner-naomi-goldstein-whitewashing-attorneys-in-1st-appel-1256265795.html [5] Februart 09, 2009 Iviewit Complaint Against Reardon and Friedberg http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf [6] http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090209%20FINAL%20Iviewit%20Response%20to%20First%20Department%20Re%20Conflict%20Foley%20Proskauer%20attorneys%20SIGNED.doc.pdf [7] It should be noted that the January 27, 2009 letter referenced was not to myself, Eliot Bernstein, but instead to P. Stephen Lamont who has illegally been acting as an Iviewit Technologies Officer, the CEO, of an Iviewit company located 175 King Street in Armonk New York of which no such company to the best of my knowledge ever existed.  I have previously made a Motion to Compel at the Second Circuit in my pending case regarding Lamont’s illegal behavior with the First Department in attempts to create exonerative letters through fraud in collusion with the DDC, which can be found @ http://iviewit.tv/wordpress [8] http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090618%20FINAL%20NYAG%20Steven%20Cohen%20Letter%20Re%20Lamont%20Signed.pdf