Eliot I. Bernstein v. Appellate Division, First Department. Case 1:07-cv-09599-SAS Motion for Clarification

Eliot I. Bernstein v. Appellate Division, First Department. Case 1:07-cv-09599-SAS




https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bzn2NurXrSkidXI4NmIwQjRzWDg/edit

For More on this Case, Click Below
http://ia600200.us.archive.org/12/items/gov.uscourts.nysd.317945/gov.uscourts.nysd.317945.docket.html

Eliot I. Bernstein v. Appellate Division, First Department. Case 1:07-cv-09599-SAS, Motion to Re-Open Based on Fraud on the Court.

iViewit, Eliot Bernstein

 

Plaintiff, Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox NOTIFIES Intel Corp., (INTC:NASDAQ GS) (INTC.OQ) (INTC:US) of Massive Shareholder Liability by sending INTC, Intel Corp a Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability Regarding Federal RICO / Racketeering Lawsuit District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, filed February 26th, 2013 by Plaintiff Crystal Cox. Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, District Judge James C. Mahan, Las Vegas Nevada.

Plaintiff Blogger Crystal Cox Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability; Defendant INTC, Intel Corp., Douglas Melamed personally and professionally, Steven R. Rodger personally and professionally. RICO / Racketeering Lawsuit, District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.

Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Pro Se Plaintiff
District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

March 6th,  2013

Steven R. Rodgers
Vice President of Legal, Corporate Affairs and
Deputy General Counsel of Litigation, Licensing & Patents, Intel Corporation

Douglas Melamed
Intel Corp. General Counsel

Intel, INTC Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers

Regarding:   NOTICE of Liability;   
Notice of Claim Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel, INTC Shareholders and Others.  Notice to all Intel Executives, Shareholders, Board Members, Insurance Providers, Auditors, and all financially connected to Intel Corp., INTC in any way.

Notice Regarding RICO / Racketeering Complaint Filed in District Of Nevada, Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders and Intel Executives.

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF names Douglas Melamed, Steven R. Rodgers and Intel Corp. in conspiracy to STOP the flow of information in online media regarding INTC, Intel’s Involvement in the iViewit Technology Theft.


Douglas Melamed, Steven R. Rodgers and Whom It May Concern:

This notice is written upon the Knowledge and Belief of Investigative Blogger Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox.  I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, write this letter to notify you of legal action pending against Intel, INTC in the District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Lawsuit, whereby Intel Corp., Douglas Melamed, and Steven R. Rodgers are named Defendants.

Notice was sent to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation, who is named Personally and Professionally, On December 27th 2012 and again in On January  27th 2013. As well as updated court documents.   Notices have also been sent to INTC, Intel Corp. General Counsel Douglas Melamed

Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation have, thus far, ignored this serious legal matter, and it is assumed have failed to notify auditors, shareholders, Intel Ceo’s, and all who should be notified of this massive liability to Intel Corp. and INTC Shareholders.

Upon information and belief, the frauds included but are not limited to the failure of Intel Corp., INTC, to disclose both this lawsuit and the Intellectual Property infringement of the iViewit Technology, which is a Trillion dollar liability to Intel, INTC Shareholders and the Intel Corporation.

Intel Corp., INTC executives have known of this massive liability over violations of NDA’s and infringement of the iViewit Video Technology for over a Decade.

Ex-Senior Vice President, General Counsel of Intel Corp., INTC, Bruce Sewell, now General Counsel of APPLE, who is also named in this Federal RICO Lawsuit. Corresponded with Eliot Bernstein regarding this massive undisclosed liability. I, Crystal Cox have attached those correspondences to this Notice of Liability, as well as added links at the bottom of this letter.

APPLE Executive Steven Dowling has also communicated with Eliot Bernstein of iViewit Technology regarding this massive undisclosed liability.

Eliot Bernstein, founder of iViewit Technology Company, and one of the inventors of the iViewit Video Technology, is named as a Defendant in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, which was filed in alleged conspiracy to suppress Internet Blogs, Domain Names and Online Media reporting on the iViewit Technology theft, which involves Intel Corp., INTC, as noted in the iViewit Technology SEC Complaint, RICO Complaint, FBI Complaints, USPTO Complaint and other Federal Investigations into this matter.

In regard to Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Technology Company, Intel Corp., INTC has massive, undisclosed liabilities and this notice is to warn all those financially tied to INTC, Intel Corporation of this massive liability. Failing to disclose this liability is in direct violation of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for disclosing liabilities and more.

The Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Technology Company, also involves an attempted murder of his family and a car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to Bernstein Vehicle.

The iViewit Technology theft is a very serious matter, and a massive, undisclosed liability to Intel, INTC shareholders, auditors, and executives. The iViewit Technology theft  involves high stakes corporate theft and fraud of a 13 Trillion Dollar Intellectual Property.

Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to the iViewit Case as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower case, the Christine Anderson case. ( Christine C. Anderson,Case No.: 07cv9599 Plaintiff Appellant, (SAS) (AJP), 2d Cir. No. 09-5059-cv v. The State of New York,Defendants-Appellee)

Steven Rodgers Vice President has allegedly conspired with WIPO, ( World Intellectual Property Organization) Director Francis Gurry, and also WIPO Legal Edward Kwakwa and also Eric Wilbers of WIPO, in order to wipe out blogs, online media that report on the iViewit Technology Story and cover up this massive liability by wiping out blogs, changing domain names servers of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have a web stat that shows WIPO looking at my Notice to WIPO of massive fraud, and then emailing Steven Rodgers of INTC, Intel Corporation.

Eric Wilbers of WIPO has spoke with Eliot Bernstein and Crystal Cox regarding this matter. WIPO has been notified of this massive fraud months ago, that will affect Intel, INTC Shareholders. WIPO has done nothing, that I am aware of, to correct this matter nor to notify executives, insurance providers, shareholders of this massive liability.

Steven Rodgers Intel Corporation knows of the iViewit Technology infringement by Intel, and has failed disclose this liability to Shareholders, Executives, Auditors..

Intel Corp. INTC Shareholders have a massive liability in this matter. This letter is a NOTICE to Intel Corp Executives, Shareholders, Auditors, Liability Carriers, Insurance Provides and more, to disclose this massive liability, that by LAW Intel Corporation, INTC, Must Disclose.

I, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have attached the Federal RICO Complaint  District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF to this eMail notice, as well as documents of Intel’s Connection to this liability.

Here is an Online Link to the RICO Complaint Filed February 26th, 2013 by Plaintiff, Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox,  District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147018909/District-of-Nevada-213-cv-00297-JCM-NJK-Civil-RICO-Complaint-COX-vs-Randazza-RacketeerCorrupt-Organization-Jurisdiction-Diversity-Case

Also note that Portland Oregon Law Firm Tonkon Torp LLP and Mike Morgan of Tonkon Torp are also named in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.

Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Portland represented Intel and represented Enron in their bankruptcy, this is very much connected to the Iviewit Technology case and also brings massive financial liability to the shareholders of INTC, Intel Corp.

There is definite action that Steven Rodgers of INTC, Intel Corporation should have take to disclose this legal action. There is definite action that Bruce Sewell former General Counsel at Intel Corporation should have also taken to disclose this legal action. Bruce Sewell, now General Counsel of APPLE is also a named Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, as is APPLE Executive Steve Dowling.

This Notice of Claim and Liability serves as a warning to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, Intel Financially for any reason of the massive, pending liability to Intel Corporation, INTC.

INTC, Intel has violated NDA’s with Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology.  INTC, Intel is named in Federal RICO Complaints, SEC Complaints and more, in regard to massive liability over the infringement of the iViewit Video Technology, which is said to be worth 13 Trillion Dollars.

Knowing the liability that Intel, INTC has over the iViewit Video Technology, and violations of agreements with Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technology, Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation recently conspired with WIPO and WIPO Panelist Peter L. Michaelson, to take Domain Names from Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, and Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, who had been reporting on the iViewit Technology theft for 3 years.

Peter L. Michaelson has conspired with the Plaintiff in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Marc J. Randazza, who now is also a named Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, in order to launch a public defamation, disgrace, and discrediting campaign against Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, reporting on the iViewit Technology Theft for over 3 years.

Marc J. Randazza, Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF, conspired by officially stating in WIPO Complaints, WIPO Publications, WIPO Decisions, and WIPO Legal Announcements to the World, that Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, and Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox are guilty of the crime of extortion, of which neither Eliot Bernstein, Founder of iViewit and one of the iViewit Inventors, nor Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox have been charged with, under investigation for, nor prosecuted of.

This action by Peter L. Michaelson and Marc J. Randazza in WIPO Decisions and in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, was intentional to discredit and silence the reporting of the world’s biggest technology crime. Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox has filed claims against all those conspiring with Plaintiff Marc J. Randazza in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, and the WIPO Decision.

I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, have attached correspondence between Intel, INTC and Eliot Bernstein to this notice.  Here are links to further information regarding the massive liability to INTC, Intel Corp. Shareholders, Insurance Carriers and Intel Executives.

Links to Documents proving this massive Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, Intel Financially for any reason.

iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Naming INTC, Intel Corp.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

iViewit Technology NDA Agreements with INTC, Intel Corp.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/nda%20violators.pdf

iViewit Technology Demand Letter to INTC, Intel Corp.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/130695905/iviewittv_CompanyDocs_United-States-District-Court-Southern-District-NY_20090306-Intel-Demand-Letter-_-Liability-Exposure--Signed-3549l

More Regarding INTC, Intel Corp and iViewit Technology
.
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?tag=intc

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=498

http://www.rayfordwilkins.com/2012/10/intel-corp-intc-refuse-to-disclose.html

http://intelcorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/intel-general-counsel-bruce-sewell.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf

http://federalricolawsuit.blogspot.com/2010/01/judiciary-committee-reviews-iviewit.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/RICO%20CRIME%20CHARTS.pdf

I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, am an Investigative Blogger, I have read thousands of pages of documents over 3 years, listened to Senate Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings, read depositions, read billing documents, listening to depositions, read court filings, read NDA agreements, and massive amounts of proof of the liability that Intel has. This is an Important issue and by LAW must be disclosed.

I, Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal Cox, intend to file this Notice with the SEC, 7 days after sending this official notice to INTC, Intel Corporation.

I have read SEC Complaints, RICO Complaints, USPTO Complaints, NDA Agreements, Contracts, and massive amounts of documented proof of the rightful Inventors and owner of the iViewit Technology that 99% of ALL video uses today, and I feel it is my duty to Warn INTC Investors, shareholders, auditors, insurance providers, ceos and more regarding this massive liability.

Upon my knowledge and belief, Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation has directly conspired to silence me, Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox, as I have been reporting on the iViewit Technology theft for over 3 years. Due to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation conspiring to remove my online media regarding the iViewit Technology theft,  I have filed legal action against Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation personally and professionally, and against the INTC Company for 10 Million Each.

This is a serious and valid Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability and is in response to Steven Rodgers Vice President & Deputy General Counsel at Intel Corporation, Douglas Melamed, and Intel Corp. being named in a Federal RICO, Racketeering Lawsuit, FILED by Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF.

Defendant in District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF have directly attacked me, defaming me, suppressed my online news media blogs, endangered my life, threatened me, stolen my intellectual property, and ruined my reputation in order to SUPPRESS the flow of information regarding their involvement and liability in the iViewit Technology Theft.

Pro Se Plaintiff
District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
Crystal Cox News
Crystal@CrystalCox.com


PDF of INTC, Intel Corp., Notice of Claim, Notice of Liability
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/148002688/INTC-Intel-Notice-of-Claim-Notice-of-Liablity

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF RICO Filing
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147018909/District-of-Nevada-213-cv-00297-JCM-NJK-Civil-RICO-Complaint-COX-vs-Randazza-RacketeerCorrupt-Organization-Jurisdiction-Diversity-Case

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-VCF Docket
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/147851256/213-cv-00297-JCM-VCF---Nevada-RICO


If you are concerned about this serious liability to INTC, Intel Corp. Stocks, Shares, Assets or have questions regarding this legal action, here are Intel Corp., INTC Key Executive, and Contact Information.

Contact Information

Intel Corp

2200 Mission College Boulevard

Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549

United States

Phone: 1-408-765-8080

Fax: 1-408-765-9904

www.intel.com

Key Executives for Intel Corp (INTC)

Andy D BryantChairman	Paul S OtelliniPresident/CEO
Stacy Jared SmithExec VP/CFO	Brian M KrzanichExec VP/COO
David Perlmutter "Dadi"Exec VP/Chief Product Officer	Renee J JamesExec VP/Gen Mgr:Svcs
Thomas M Kilroy "Tom"Exec VP/Gen Mgr:Sales & Mktg	William M Holt "Bill"Exec VP/Gen Mgr:Technology
Arvind SodhaniExecutive Vice President	A Douglas Melamed "Doug"Senior VP/General Counsel
Kirk B SkaugenSenior VP/Gen Mgr:PC Client Grp	Diane M BryantSenior VP/Gen Mgr:Datacenter
Sohail U AhmedSenior VP/Dir:Logic Technology	Jonathan KhazamVP/Gen Mgr:Visual & Parallel
Michael C MayberryVP/Dir:Components Research	Mark HenningerInvestor Relations

Pro Se Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox files Federal RICO Complaint. District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK; Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Intel Corp., INTC, Steven Rodgers Intel Executive, Douglas Melamed Intel General Counsel, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Tonkon Torp Lawyer Mike Morgan, and Other Alleged Co-Conspirators are Named Defendants.

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK

District of Nevada 2:13-cv-00297-JCM-NJK Civil RICO Complaint, COX vs. Randazza. Racketeer/Corrupt Organization Jurisdiction: Diversity Case


Open Notice of Liability Disclosure By Pro Se Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox Disclosing Massive Liability to Intel Shareholders, INTC, Intel Auditors, and More.
http://www.douglasmelamed.com/2013/02/i-pro-se-counter-plaintiff-crystal-cox.html

Web Stat Showing WIPO eMailing Intel, and Other Information
http://peterlmichaelson.blogspot.com/2013/01/world-intellectual-property.html

iViewit Technology, Eliot Bernstein, SEC Complaint
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

iViewit Technology, Eliot Bernstein, Exhibits
http://www.iviewit.tv/#Evidence

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

iViewit Technology, Eliot Bernstein, U.S. Court of Appeals Docket
http://www.iviewit.tv/#USCA

iViewit Technology Story

http://www.douglasmelamed.com/2013/02/eliot-bernstein-of-iviewit-technology.html

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://www.free-press-release.com/news/print-1316880094.html

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=594

More Intel, INTC RICO Liability
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51737284/Proof-Of-Intel-Cartel---RICO-Proof

Open Letter Sent to INTC, Intel Corporation, Auditors, Shareholders, Insurance Carries, Executives and more... to Give Notice of Liability Regarding District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL. Sent by Pro Se Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox disclosing INTC, Intel Corporation massive, undisclosed liabilities regarding District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL and the undisclosed liability of iViewit Video Technology Infringement by Intel, INTC.

"Crystal L. Cox

Pro Se Counter Plaintiff
District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Thursday, February 21st 2013

Steven R. Rodgers
Vice President of Legal, Corporate Affairs and
Deputy General Counsel of Litigation, Licensing & Patents, Intel Corporation

Douglas Melamed
Intel Corp. General Counsel

Regarding: Complaint - NOTICE of Liability; Notice of Claim Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar Fraud on Intel, INTC Shareholders and Others.  Notice to all Intel Executives, Shareholders, Board Members, Insurance Providers, Auditors, and all financially connected to Intel Corp., INTC in any way.

Douglas Melamed, Steven R. Rodgers and Whom It May Concern:"

Open Letter Sent to INTC, Intel Corporation to Give Notice of Liability Regarding District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL by Pro Se Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox. INTC has massive, undisc



This Open Letter Will Go to ALL Intel Corp. Board of Directors, Shareholders, Insurance Carriers and ALL Government Agencies Involved to serve as YET another Warning of what will happen to Intel Corp. Shareholders. Just as in the Madoff Scandal, they CANNOT Say they Did Not Know. There is a Whole lot of Fact, Proof that they Did Know and DO Know RIGHT NOW.

Please Forward this Letter to ALL Intel Corp. Investors, Shareholders, Directors, Executives that
You Know of. This is a VERY Big Deal Financially. It is NOT a Hoax, Look at the Fact yourself,
read the documents of the case and Warn Others.

The Stolen Iviewit Technology will Cost Intel Corp. Investors, Shareholders Billions.
CEO Paul Otellini of Intel Corp. KNOWS of this Massive Shareholder and is NOT Disclosing
to Intel Corps. Board of Directors, Shareholders or Insurance Carriers.

It is Your Money, You Have a Right to Know that Billions will be Paid By Intel Corp. in
the Iviewit Technology Theft. It is not a Matter of IF, the Proof is ALL there. 
It is a Matter of When.

Here is Proof that Intel Corps. CEO Paul Otellini and then Intel Corp. General Counsel Bruce Sewell
knew of the Stolen Iviewit Technology and have Yet to Disclose to Intel Corps. Board of Directors,
Shareholders or Insurance Carriers to this day.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States

%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20

Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%

20%20Signed%203549l.pdf

Research Links For More information on the iViewit Stolen Technology

DeniedPatent.com

http://www.iviewit.tv/#Evidence

http://www.iviewit.tv/#USPTOFILINGS

http://www.iviewit.tv/#USDC

More Links and Resources to Intel's Involvement 

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=288

http://www.antitrustviolations.com/2011/01/intel-shareholder-fraud-over-iviewit.html

More Proof on Intel Corp. Cover Ups

SEC Galleon, Intel Capital Complaint Click Here

Click Below For FTC Investigators Reports on MORE Cover Ups by Intel Corp.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51737284/Proof-Of-Intel-Cartel---RICO-Proof

Links to Documents proving this massive Liability to INTC, Intel Shareholders, Auditors, 
Insurance Providers, CEO’s, and all companies and people connected to INTC, 
Intel Financially for any reason.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/nda%20violators.pdf

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/130695905/iviewittv_CompanyDocs_United-States-District-Court-Southern-District-NY_20090306-Intel-Demand-Letter-_-Liability-Exposure--Signed-3549l

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?tag=intc

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=498

http://www.rayfordwilkins.com/2012/10/intel-corp-intc-refuse-to-disclose.html

http://intelcorruption.blogspot.com/2010/10/intel-general-counsel-bruce-sewell.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf

http://federalricolawsuit.blogspot.com/2010/01/judiciary-committee-reviews-iviewit.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/RICO%20CRIME%20CHARTS.pdf

Liability Notice to Be Sent out to all CEO's, Shareholders, Board Members, Managing Attorneys, Auditors, Liability Carriers, Insurance Providers, and all financially connect to Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, Coming Soon.

Pro Se Counter Plaintiff
Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox
Whistleblower Media
Crystal Cox News
Anti-Corruption Media
Crystal Cox PressCrystal@CrystalCox.com

Notice to Tonkon Torp LLP Insurance Providers, Tonkon Torp LLP Auditors, Tonkon Torp LLP Managing Partners, Tonkon Torp LLP Associates and all who have a financial interest connected to Tonkon Torp LLP Practicing Law in WA, CA, and Oregon.

Open Notice of Pending Legal Action against Tonkon Torp LLP

Notice to Tonkon Torp LLP Insurance Providers, Tonkon Torp LLP Auditors, Managing Partners, Associates and all who have a financial interest connected to Tonkon Torp LLP

Tonkon Torp LLP has recently had serious legal action filed against Tonkon Torp Law Firm and Individual Tonkon Torp Attorneys.

Tonkon Torp LLP has been sued by an Investigative Blogger whom claims that several Tonkon Torp Attorneys were involved in Conspiracy to defame, taunt, harass, threaten, intimidate, and financial ruin her.

Tonkon Torp LLP, David S. Aman, Steven Wilker, and Mike Morgan of Tonkon Torp Law Firm have been named in District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL as Counter Defendants. 

According to Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox, David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP, has no way viable defense for defamation as he, allegedly, knowingly, told the New York Times, Forbes, Seattle Weekly and more that Crystal Cox had Extorted him and his client and that she was guilty of Extortion, knowing full well that was untrue.

Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox was not on trial for a Extortion.  Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox was a Pro Se defendant in Civil Trial where David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP represented the Plaintiff, Obsidian Finance Group and he knew full well that the trial was not about Extortion.  Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox had not been charged with, nor under investigation for the Crime of Extortion. Yet, with actual malice,  David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP, knowing that Crystal Cox was not guilty of Extortion, told a Federal Judge that she was guilty of Extortion and told several major media outlets. 

According to Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox this has led to her financial ruin, her business being lost, her life under constant attack and duress and has caused massive, irreparable damage to Crystal Cox. 

David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP, allegedly did all this with actual malice, and actual knowledge of the facts in order to retaliate against a defendant he had sued prior and had already won $2.5 Million Dollar Judgment for his client. 

David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP acted deliberately, maliciously, simply to TEACH a Pro Se Defendant a lesson, even though she already had a $2.5 Million Dollar Judgment against her. 

David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP sent these media outlets a part of an email, one email out of 5 emails that a Pro Se Defendant in one of his cases had sent to him, in response to a cease and desist he had sent to her and after David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP had filed a lawsuit against her. She was corresponding with David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP in her Pro Se Capacity, acting as her own attorney, trying to negotiate a way to STOP a 10 million dollar legal action he had threatened and then filed against her, Crystal Cox.

David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP Attorney made it look as if this Pro Se Defendant was a Criminal, though she had not been charged with a crime. 

This has led to well over a year of attacks, further defamation, threats, constant taunting and massive daily duress to Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.  And all this AFTER he had already WON his case against a Pro Se Litigant, simply to retaliate and harass her.

David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP Attorney also used the Obsidian V. Cox Docket as a way to attack Inventor Eliot Bernstein, who is one of the Inventors of the iViewit Video Technology, in which Tonkon Torp LLP client Intel has knowingly infringed on for over a decade. 

Tonkon Torp Law Firm also represents Enron in their Bankruptcy Issues. Enron, according to massive documents of proof in the iViewit SEC Complaint, iViewit RICO Complaint and Legal Action and massive iViewit related legal documents, went bankruptcy over deals between Proskauer Rose Patent Lawyers and Enron that were all about the pending iViewit Technology Patent, in which the  iViewit Technology company never did get credit for.

Tonkon Torp Law Firm knows that their association with Enron and Intel creates massive liability over David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP adding iViewit Technology Founder Eliot Bernstein as a named Defendant to Obsidian V. Cox.

The Obsidian V. Cox Trial was 11-29-2011, the Verdict was issued that same day. This means the Case was done, the Trial had taken place and the ONLY, named Defendant was Blogger Crystal Cox. Court Dockets easily prove all these details. 

Yet on 5-11-2012, nearly 6 months later, David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP Attorney, simply added  iViewit Technology Founder Eliot Bernstein as a named Defendant to Obsidian V. Cox, a court case that was over 6 months prior. How is this possible? How do Tonkon Torp Attorneys have this kind of power, to add a named Defendant who was never served and never part of a legal case, to a Court Docket as a named Defendant, 6 months after the Trial took place?

David S. Aman of Tonkon Torp LLP Attorney allegedly added iViewit Technology Founder Eliot Bernstein to the court docket simply to threaten and harass him, in order to attempt to protect iViewit Technology Tonkon Torp LLP's liability or the liability of their clients Enron and Intel. 

Crystal Cox is Suing Tonkon Torp LLP and Tonkon Torp Attorneys for 10 Million Dollars Each. The iViewit Technology is said to worth over 13 Trillion Dollars, Intel is still infringing on the iViewit Video Technology, and Intel has not disclosed this known liability to their shareholders.

It seems that if there is ANY litigation pending that Tonkon Torp LLP, under FASB, and other rules and regulations, MUST notify their insurance providers and their auditors. Tonkon Torp LLP has report this massive liability.

Tonkon Torp LLP, as representation for Intel, also seems to have a duty, an obligation to Notify Intel Shareholders of the massive liability that they have not been notified of, over the patent infringement of the iViewit Technology. If Tonkon Torp LLP DOES NOT ethically notify Intel, INTC, Shareholders, then Intel may very well be another ENRON, as the iViewit Technology is said to be worth 13 Trillion Dollars and the liability to Intel, INTC, will most likely be in the 100's of Billions.

Tonkon Torp LLP must disclose pending legal action to Insurance Provides and Auditors, it is the Law. This is an open Notice regarding pending legal action against Tonkon Torp LLP brought on by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox.

Here is the Complaint against Tonkon Torp LLP 

in connection with Alleged Co-Conspirators

                               (Counter) Complaint Filed by Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/142885647/Pro-Se-Counter-Plaintiff-Crystal-L-Cox-Files-Amended-Counterclaim

Counter Plaintiff' Motion for Summary Judgement

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/145538063/Counter-Plaintiff-Motion-for-Summary-Judgement-in-Nevada-Free-Speech-Threat-Nevada-SLAPP-Lawsuit-Nevada-First-Amendment-Threat-Lawsuit-District-of-Nevada-Case-212-cv-02040-GMN-PAL

                 Memorandum to Counter Plaintiff' Motion for Summary Judgement
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/145538158/Memorandum-to-Counter-Plaintiff-Motion-for-Summary-Judgement

Posted here Upon the Knowledge and Belief of 

Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox

Investigative Blogger

David Wang and Mark Vena were At Silicon Graphics Inc., I Believe.Silicon Graphics Inc. was Instrumental in the iViewit Technology Theft. Eliot Bernstein, Creditor, v. Silicon Graphics, Inc. Also Note Bruce Sewell then Intel, INTC, nor Apple General Counsel.

"Ch. 11 Proof of Claim by Eliot Bernstein, Creditor, v. Silicon Graphics, Inc, et al.

Ch. 11 Case Nos. 09-11700 thru 09-11714 Jointly Administered Under 09-11701,
Hon. Judge Martin Glen, US Bankruptcy Judge Follow Up of March 3, 2009 Phone Discussion; Responsible Business Judgments; Financial Accounting Standards Board “FASB” Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 Accounting for Contingencies - Reporting Requirements; Limited Time Offer

Dear US Bankruptcy Court Clerk of the Southern District of New York and Donlin Recano, Claims Agent: 
Enclosed for filing in this matter please find a signed Proof of Claim Form B 10 ( Official Form 10 ) ( 12/08 ) together in support of such Proof of Claim a URL link to a copy of my Emergency Motion and Petition dated April 9, 2009 @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090409%20FINAL%20US%20Bankruptcy%20Court%20SDNY%20SGI%20Motion.pdf. 


In further support of such Proof of Claim, please see the following links of NDA violators and other pertinent contract information and related evidentiary links in support of such Proof of Claim: 


http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Confidentialities/confidentialities%20total.pdf


http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Paul%20Allen/old%20patent/LEGAL/REAL%20DEAL.WPD


http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/bibona%202.pdf


http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/EXHIBITS/09%20522%20721%20Change%20of%20Inventorship%20Form%20ALL%20PATENTS%20CROSSBOW%20S.pdf


My Amended Federal Complaint filed in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York which was Assigned to US District Judge Shira Scheindlin and was marked legally “related” by District Judge Shira Scheindlin to the federal Whistleblower case of Christine Anderson. Anderson blowing the whistle on public corruption in the NY First Department with my case presently on Appeal to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals under Docket No. 08-4873 cv and Anderson’s being scheduled for trial in the District Court; 

www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf


The legally “related” Federal Whistleblower Case of Christine Anderson; 

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf


Patent Suspension Notice 1 from the US PTO; 

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2005%2002%2014%2009%20630%20939%20US%20Patent%20-%202nd%20six%20month%20extension.pdf


Patent Suspension Notice 2 from the US PTO; 

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2005%2007%2020%20-%2009%20587730%20USPTO%20Suspension%20Second%20Six%20Months.pdf

I, Eliot I. Bernstein, Petitioner, Creditor and Claimant herein against Silicon Graphics, Inc. et al., hereby further incorporate by reference in this Proof of Claim under Ch. 11 of the US Bankruptcy law any and all links, materials, references, evidentiary information, proprietary information and other at my website www.iviewit.tv that specifically includes Intellectual Property information and other. 

from our telephone discussion on Tuesday, March 5, 2009, I wish to make several observations as part of this 24-hour limited time offer to enter sound and responsible business negotiations on behalf of the Intel Corporation. As you will note further herein, there is definite and certain action to be taken at the conclusion of the 24-hour limited time offer herein with such 24-hour period commencing upon 9:00am EST on Friday, March 06, 2009 and ending 9:00am EST on Saturday March 07, 2009. Thus, you may wish to pay particular attention herein.

As you will see, it is respectfully requested and suggested that you, Mr. Sewell, Senior Vice President - General Counsel of the Intel Corporation, will be making a sound and proper business decision herein by taking this matter and limited time offer to negotiate to your Chairman and CEO within 24-hours herein. Please read below to see the definite and certain action that I will be taking in the event you do not properly bring this matter to the Chairman and CEO within 24 hours for their response which will be due 48-hours after the ending of such 24-hour period.

As the original Owner and Inventor of backbone "technologies" and a business person myself, I was alarmed and shocked at your hostile resistance to commence sound, responsible business discussions in this matter and further alarmed at the hostile reaction you exhibited when I suggested speaking with the Chairman and the CEO of Intel Corporation in this matter. 

I respectfully suggest that you, Mr. D. Bruce Sewell, Esq., have admitted to failing and may be presently and currently failing in a variety of legal and ethical obligations under law and codes of conduct and as it relates to Intel and the rights of the shareholders and others in Intel and other interested parties who may incur liabilities. 

This failure centers around your admission that a "contingent" liability has not been booked and will not be booked on the records of Intel as it relates to my claims as Original Owner and Inventor of backbone technologies as set out further herein.

Remarkably, however, this admission by you Mr. Sewell during this phone discussion referenced above was made despite your further admission during the same conversation that you are personally familiar with our contracts that were signed with Real 3D, Inc. that were transferred with your acquisition of Real 3D and as stated by Tim Connolly when he transferred from Real 3D to Intel, our technologies and relations were now being handled by Lawrence S. Palley, Director of Business Development and further assuring by Palley with former Pres. Of Iviewit Brian G. Utley and others, that Iviewit’s NDA’s, Strategic Alliances and Licensing Agreements both signed and in draft with both Real 3D and Iviewit’s legal counsel were going to be honored and furthered with Intel’s use of the scaling imaging and video technologies they had already begun using. 

As Intel was also a 10% owner of Real 3D and engineers from Intel and Lockheed Martin were brought into Real 3D to evaluate the technologies that led to the agreements, we presume that Intel has had direct and binding knowledge since that original point of knowledge of possible and future litigation of the patents that you signed NDA’s to review, on or about 1999 and certainly when Mr. Palley began oversight of the Iviewit patent and intellectual property agreements inherited by Intel wholly.

Because it is possible that your failures in this matter are in part premised upon an improper interpretation of applicable FASB accounting rules, I have enclosed relevant sections of these rules for your further review: 

Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 Accounting for Contingencies rules for booking a "contingent" liability in this matter:

For the purpose of this Statement, a contingency is defined as an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible gain (hereinafter a “gain contingency”) or loss (hereinafter a “loss contingency”) to an enterprise that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. Resolution of the uncertainty may confirm the acquisition of an asset or the reduction of a liability or the loss or impairment of an asset or the incurrence of a liability.

4. Examples of loss contingencies include:

e. Pending or threatened litigation.

f. Actual or possible claims and assessments.

Litigation, Claims, and Assessments

The following factors, among others, must be considered in determining whether accrual and/or disclosure is required with respect to pending or threatened litigation and actual or possible claims and assessments:

a. The period in which the underlying cause (i.e., the cause for action) of the pending or threatened litigation or of the actual or possible claim or assessment occurred.

b. The degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome.

c. The ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss.

Please take note of the following FASB language:

By way of further example, an enterprise may believe there is a possibility that it has infringed on another enterprise’s patent rights, but the enterprise owning the patent rights has not indicated an intention to take any action and has not even indicated an awareness of the possible infringement. 

In that case, a judgment must first be made as to whether the assertion of a claim is probable. If the judgment is that assertion is not probable, no accrual or disclosure would be required. 

On the other hand, if the judgment is that assertion is probable, then a second judgment must be made as to the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome.

 If an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, accrual of a loss is required by paragraph 8. If an unfavorable outcome is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, accrual would not be appropriate, but disclosure would be required by paragraph 10. 

If an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, disclosure would be required by paragraph 10."

I respectfully Direct your focused attention to the following: "In that case, a judgment must first be made as to whether the assertion of the claim is probable." 

Surely it is "probable" that a claim will be asserted as claims have already been formally asserted in litigation and I remind you of prior communications with you whereby it is noted to notify your shareholders or any others with liability of these claims.

Then I Direct your focused attention to the following: "then a second judgment must be made as to the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome." 

At the time of our recent discussion, I attempted on more than one occasion to suggest to you during this discussion that the claims I have currently asserted in the federal courts of New York are Not the only claims which I may assert and further attempted to politely suggest to you that despite a present Dismissal from the Southern District of New York District Court Judge, that not only is the case on Appeal to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but that further Lawsuits Motions and filings would soon be forthcoming which were not necessarily limited to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and not limited to the Federal Courts in New York. 

Further, that as a result of ongoing state, federal and international investigations that criminal charges may soon be filed by any of the numerous investigatory agencies worldwide against certain defendants and certainly this could have catastrophic individual and corporate ramifications on Intel Corporation and certainly shareholders and regulators would have to be notified of these possible actions as well. 

I do note as an aside, Mr. Sewell, that your hostile reactions and refusal to have polite discussions may be a sign of personal failings and/or medical/psychological conditions or even perhaps reactions based upon intimate relevant knowledge of wrongdoings herein but no matter what the cause you may wish to Consult your company's Own Code of Conduct Rules for internal reporting where it is possible that a company employee such as yourself may or likely is Not acting in the best interests of the Intel Corporation. A Link to the Intel PDF Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Rules is @http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/docs/code-of-conduct.pdf for your convenience. 

Returning your focus, however, to the issues at hand, I remind you that the Appeal in my case is currently and presently pending at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals which raises a very remarkable issue based on your conduct: Since in any fair and ethical court and tribunal the outcome of a matter is never certain "in advance", are You suggesting Mr. Sewell that you have some advance insight or knowledge of the outcome that is forthcoming at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals sufficient to not render the matter "contingent"? 

If you do, of course, I will most certainly immediately Report this matter to any and All appropriate authorities including the US Attorney's Office, US DOJ Inspector Glenn A. Fine, Marshall Jarrett of the FBI OPR, the US Judicial Council, US House, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Intel Board and Shareholders and US Senate Judiciary Committees and other as proper. 

If, however, you do not have such "definite" and "certain" information in advance which would of course be "Illegal" and proof of corruption if you did, then you Must admit that the liability is "contingent" and based upon your specific personal knowledge of the Signed NDAs, Strategic Alliance Agreements, Licensing Agreements, etc. you must Book the liability and Disclose same and Assign an estimated value which such value has been estimated to be nearly a Trillion dollars over the life of the IP and further the lawsuit you are named defendant in, contained in the Amended Complaint you have been served and current filings in the United States Court of Appeal, has 12 Counts currently cited against all are claimed at One Trillion per Count. 

Obviously you must be aware of what type of catastrophic consequences this liability will have on Intel and if you are not taking appropriate actions I again suggest you may be either suffering from some form of personal disability or are acting directly against the Intel Code of Conduct and against the interests of Intel Shareholders and against the accounting Laws and rules. 

Keep in mind, however, that just this analysis under the Rules while my current case is "pending" with the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals does not contemplate future action at the US Supreme Court, returned action at the District Court, additional motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, other Federal Courts and International venues, which I politely suggested to you during our phone conversation that Intel can definitely anticipate which is why I was suggesting as a responsible business person that we now begin possible settlement discussions, discussions which may alleviate certain of the liabilities although not perhaps your personal liabilities. 

More importantly, however, as you should be expressly aware, I have yet to file a formal claim based strictly on the violations of the Signed NDA’s, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing Agreements themselves, although contained in broad strokes in the Amended Complaint, yet these claims may also be separate claims which not only do you have personal knowledge of the existence of the claims but were being advised during our conversation of my clear intent to pursue such filings in the near future. 

You have also been aware of the patent claims from Iviewit, along with many others at Intel for many years now and where shareholders will question the impact of the royalties owed that were left off the books perhaps.

Now it is possible, however unlikely, that my interpretations of these Accounting Rules possibly somehow do not comport with current interpretations of these matters by the IRS/SEC but certainly I can call them within 24 hours to apprise the IRS/SEC of the situation and seek guidance and advice relative to the proper interpretations and whatever else may be just and proper. 

Prior to doing so, however, I am once again offering you as a sound and proper business judgment matter an opportunity, a 24 hour opportunity measured from 9:00am on Friday, March 06, 2009 to 9:00am on Saturday, March 07, 2009 time to turn these matters over to the CEO and Chairman of the Board and have them call me within such time to address first if you should continue to handle these matters in light of the possible FASB issues and two if they would like to have the business discussion you failed to even desire to hear, in your repeated statements that in your opinion Intel had NO liability in these matters at this time. 

FASB would point to the points of liability it appears first where Intel was aware of the Intellectual Property and royalties that would be due under licensing agreements for the technology and from Intel and your initial contact from Iviewit and myself of the lawsuits and other actions that proceeded them. 

Any reply to this communication is demanded to be by the CEO and Chairman only and if they choose to have counsel present prior to our conversation, we would prefer they choose none conflicted counsel which would now exclude you. 

As you are again made aware the federal case has been called a MURDER case by Judge Shira Scheindlin and one of Patent Theft and Car Bombings, certainly we anticipate that with matters as serious of these, with liabilities over the top (some that Intel may or may not be involved in) each liability must be reported to the top senior executives and board members of Intel and anything short will prompt immediate actions on our part to inform those at risk and those in charge of investigating such failures of disclosure.

Further, I have attached for your convenience and completion of Due Diligence some selected article links, which have direct and/or related relevance to the matters herein. 

Finally, you asked if I was threatening you and if I thought this was a game. Yes, most certainly, I was communicating my continued assertion of rights and claims through continued litigation in multiple venues and no, I do not think people trying to Murder my wife, children and myself as a game but instead as a war.Regretfully 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:

Iviewit Technologies, Inc.

ARTICLE LINKS: 

1. Today's Article March 5, 2009 on Request to US Attorney General Holder for Special Prosecutor in NY Judicial and Ethics Scandals involving NYS First Department DDC and more; 

http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2009/03/us-attorney-general-eric-holder-asked.html 

2. Article Excerpt on Iviewit Patengate at Website Nov. 24, 2007: 

The OPR investigation was sparked by a request from the DOJ - OIG, Inspector General Glenn Fine's Office whom is also conducting an ongoing investigation. 

The patent pending applications and other IP have been suspended by the Commissioner of Patents pending the outcome of ongoing state, federal and international investigations. The probe reaches some of New York's most prominent politicians and judges, and has already proven to be a stunning embarrassment to the State's ethics watchdog committees.

As a backdrop to the technologies in question, Mr. Bernstein's inventions, the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems, are the backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across almost all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints -- the "Holy Grail" inventions of the digital imaging and video worlds that enable low bandwidth video on the Internet and mobile phones."

Article Link: http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/11/press-release-november-23-2007-for.html 

3. Article Excerpt from "Justice Department Widens Patengate Probe..." August 24, 2007: 

This is quite serious," says an investigator close to the federal probe. "The charges allege that valuable 'back-bone enabling digital imaging technology'-- MPEG type intellectual property-- was stolen by the inventor's own attorneys, the once-untouchable Manhattan based law firm Proskauer Rose. This is going to get very ugly," he says. . . . . . .

I know how," says a retired federal agent who asked not to be identified. "Phone calls were made—many phone calls. Plain and simple." And while this retired federal agent isn't surprised by the apparent "cover-up," he is alarmed by his own findings after a month-long independent review of all submitted Iviewit papers. "I can't find one discrepancy in the allegations, not one unsubstantiated charge," he says. . . . . . . . 

The powers that be can't contain this story anymore—it's out, U.S. Senators and Congressman are talking about it. This involves national Commerce issues: attorneys stealing U.S. Patents from their own client, and the illegal failings of a state's ethics agency by its own cover-up, and selective, self-dealing, politically-based inaction. Patentgate appears to have exposed the true, and troubling, underbelly of ethics investigations in New York State. And it’s not pretty.

**Earlier this year, FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. assigned additional agents to the Public Integrity Corruption squad at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, and where agents have been actively conducting interviews. **

Article Link: http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html 

4. Article Excertp from "NY Ethics Scandal Tied to International Espionage Scheme"; April 1, 2008;

The evidence in the corporate eavesdropping cover-up “is frightening,” according to an informed source who has reviewed the volumes of documentation. The espionage scheme, he says, is directly tied to the growing state bar ethics scandal at the Appellate Division First Department, Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) in Manhattan.

Article Link: http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2008/04/ny-ethics-scandal-tied-to-international.html Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s)

Uniform Resource Locator(s)
All Url’s incorporated in entirety by reference herein

cmb "

Dated June 16, 2009"

Source of Post
http://be.convdocs.org/docs/index-26752.html