"" « September 24, 2009 Public Hearing: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner
Prepared Statement of Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit to New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Regarding Trillion Dollar Iviewit Federal Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Larnder, IBM, Intel, SGI, Lockheed and More »
September 24, 2009 Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson NY: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Intel, IBM, SGI & Lockheed Martin.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Senator John Sampson Chairman
SUBJECT: The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PURPOSE: This hearing will review the mission, procedures and level of public satisfaction with the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts as well as the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Monday June 8, 2009
NYC
250 Broadway
NY NY
10 A.M.
19th Floor
ORAL TESTIMONY BY INVITATION ONLY
Witness List for Judiciary Hearing 9/24/09
The Judicial & Attorney Disciplinary Process in the State of New York
1. Richard Kuse of New City, NY
2. Victor Kovner of the Fund for Modem Courts
3. Douglas Higbee of Mamaroneck, NY
4. Judith Herskowitz of Miami Beach, FL
5. Peter Gonzalez of Troy, NY
6. Andrea Wilkinson of Rensselaer, NY
7. Maria Gkanios of Mahopac, NY
8. Dominic Lieto of Mahopac, NY
9. Regina Felton Esq of Brooklyn, NY
10. Kathryn Malarkey of Purchase, NY
11. Nora Renzuli, Esq. of Staten Island, NY
12. Stephanie Klein of Long Beach, NY
13. Ike Aruti of Rosedale, NY
14. Terrence Finnan of Keene, NY
15. Gizella Weisshaus, NY
16. Eliot I. Bernstein of Boca Raton, FL
17. Suzanne McCormick & Patrick Handley of NY
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the entity that is legally responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of attorneys in New York State. The Appellate Division Departments have created grievance committees that are charged with the investigation of complaints against attorneys.
Within the First Judicial Department the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division investigates complaints against attorneys.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by the State Constitution and is charged with investigating complaints against Judges and Justices of the Unified Court System.
According to the 2009 Report of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, there were 1,923 complaints filed in 2008. Yet of these complaints only 262 were investigated and of those, 173 were dismissed.
This hearing will examine the processes and procedures that are followed by the various agencies charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules and regulations that must be followed by the Judiciary and the Bar in the State of New York. It will also evaluate public satisfaction with the disciplinary process. ""
Full Article, Source of Post and VIDEO Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159
posted HERE by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Showing posts with label IBM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IBM. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Sunday, January 10, 2010
APPLE is No Stranger to Throwing Around Restricted Stocks, Paying BIG for an IMMEDIATE General Counsel, and GETTING their Way no matter What the Cost.
So APPLE Wanted Daniel Cooperman pretty bad at One time, only to make a quick deal to get D. Bruce Sewell on that Job as APPLE General Counsel.
It is Said that Daniel Cooperman left Unrestricted Stock Options....
It is Said that when Bruce Sewell took over these stocks were "left on the table" sort of speak, I don't believe that for a minute... this talk of "restricted stocks" what does that mean when APPLE can offer them up early, can dangle them to go with new jobs....
Why Does APPLE do this Let's GO NOW ..
with their General Counsel and I don't Care what it Costs?
It can only be because of pending litigations and what that person, that attorney - general counsel would mean in connection to current pending doom. It must be cheaper to spend say $25 Million to get a General Counsel that can help or has connections in a particular situation rather then to lose a hundred million dollar case or deal.
Regarding Daniel Cooperman's Hiring....
At this Time, Nov. 2007, the Media Outlets discused that the then General Counsel at APPLE Donald Rosenberg would be leaving after ONLY 10 Months on the JOB, and that Donald Rosenberg had $30 Million in those seemingly hard to get, coveted "Restricted Apple Stocks".
What is so Important about what these General Counsel's bring to APPLE that after 10 months they have $30 Million in "Restricted Apple Stocks" ? WoW they sure must do something WORTH hundreds of Millions in that Short Time - or How could this Twisted Game be Worth it?
Donald Rosenberg had been an East Coast IBM lawyer, Before Coming to APPLE for those Short 10 months, so surely Donald Rosenberg had the Connections to Get APPLE Out of What Ever November 2007 Legal Mess they were in.
There was Some Reason APPLE needed Rosenberg and there was some Immediate Reason that after 10 months Donald Rosenberg would Leave APPLE for the HURRIED hiring of Daniel Cooperman only to have Daniel Cooperman leave with the same sense of urgency to Hire D. Bruce Sewell due to whatever Connections, Affiliations, Deals, and Perks he could bring to APPLE to get them out of their Current Legal Messes. (FTC, Patent Lawsuits, SEC ... )
When Daniel Cooperman Came to APPLE, his "Experience" and Connections were seemingly to help APPLE out of some SEC Civil Charges... as this Quote from the Article Below.
"" Apple has had its own troubles. Rosenberg's predecessor at Apple, Nancy Heinen, faces SEC civil charges in connection with stock option backdating. Heinen's lawyers have said she did nothing wrong. Apple's share price has doubled in less than a year and as its business grows, so too do the potential legal issues.
" Dan is a proven quantity: He's operated in a fast-moving environment where there were a lot of deals, a lot of innovation, a lot of really smart people with no shortage of forceful personality," said Robert Major, a longtime GC recruiter with Major Lindsey & Africa who was not involved in Cooperman's hire. "[Jobs] wanted someone from the Valley, he wanted someone who was familiar to him." ""
Article I am Discussing
"" Bite of Apple Is Sweet for New GC
November 06, 2007
"Just how badly did Apple want to hire Daniel Cooperman?
Enough to give the former Oracle general counsel 133,000 shares of restricted stock, worth about $25 million at the end of trading Thursday when the company announced the grant. And enough that Apple CEO Steve Jobs handled his recruitment personally, according to an individual familiar with the situation who did not want to be named.
Apple named Cooperman GC on Sept. 28, the same day it was announced that then-GC Donald Rosenberg would be leaving for Qualcomm after only 10 months on the job. The triple play was completed when Oracle announced it was promoting Dorian Daley to its top legal spot.
Donald Rosenberg had restricted Apple stock worth about $30 million at the time he left, and the first quarter of that was scheduled to vest Dec. 1.
Rosenberg's new job doesn't seem to offer as much upside. A Qualcomm regulatory filing shows he received 500,000 options at about $40 a share, or about a dollar below where the shares closed Friday.
Jobs began talking with Cooperman in the summer, at least by August, according to someone familiar with the situation. The Apple boss also talked with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison -- the two are known to be friends -- before getting serious with Cooperman.
"I don't think [Cooperman] met anyone else in the company until Jobs had talked to Ellison personally," said an individual familiar with the situation.
Recruiters say that a demanding boss like Jobs probably saw Cooperman as a crucial hire.
"You need someone who's really seasoned, who's really trusted -- and whose general counsel would you trust more than your best friend's general counsel?" said Martha Africa, a longtime recruiter, now with Hodge Niederer Cariani Lindsay, who was not involved in Cooperman's placement.
Lawyers and legal recruiters speculated that Rosenberg, an East Coast IBM lawyer before coming to Apple, wasn't the best fit for the Silicon Valley company. But few details have emerged about the circumstances of his departure.
Nor is it entirely clear whether it was Cooperman's arrival or Rosenberg's departure that sparked the three-way move.
A Qualcomm spokesperson said the San Diego chipmaker conducted a nationwide search for a new general counsel in mid-summer, but declined to say when the company first contacted Rosenberg. The company's longtime general counsel, Louis Lupin, departed in mid-August, after a series of setbacks.
In any event, Qualcomm was pleased to welcome Rosenberg: The company gave him more options than it had given its chief financial officer or chief technical officer last year.
"If his grant is not out of line with the other senior executives, it shows that they're considering him one of their top executives," said Tom LaWer, a principal at Compensia Inc., an executive compensation consulting shop in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Qualcomm is engaged in a broad array of litigation against rival Broadcom Corp., along with other companies. At the time of Lupin's departure, Qualcomm had suffered a host of litigation defeats, and in one, a San Diego judge found that Qualcomm's legal team had committed "litigation misconduct," and may impose sanctions.
Apple has had its own troubles. Rosenberg's predecessor at Apple, Nancy Heinen, faces SEC civil charges in connection with stock option backdating. Heinen's lawyers have said she did nothing wrong. Apple's share price has doubled in less than a year and as its business grows, so too do the potential legal issues.
"Dan is a proven quantity: He's operated in a fast-moving environment where there were a lot of deals, a lot of innovation, a lot of really smart people with no shortage of forceful personality," said Robert Major, a longtime GC recruiter with Major Lindsey & Africa who was not involved in Cooperman's hire. "[Jobs] wanted someone from the Valley, he wanted someone who was familiar to him."
Daniel Cooperman has cashed in about $6.8 million worth of Oracle stock since late September around the time his move was announced. Meanwhile, Oracle's new GC, Daley, received options to buy 150,000 shares at $20.75 in mid-October.
Rosenberg did not return phone calls. Apple representatives declined to comment beyond the company's initial press release.""
Link to Source:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1194257038059
APPLE - Durward Bruce Sewell
It is Said that Daniel Cooperman left Unrestricted Stock Options....
It is Said that when Bruce Sewell took over these stocks were "left on the table" sort of speak, I don't believe that for a minute... this talk of "restricted stocks" what does that mean when APPLE can offer them up early, can dangle them to go with new jobs....
Why Does APPLE do this Let's GO NOW ..
with their General Counsel and I don't Care what it Costs?
It can only be because of pending litigations and what that person, that attorney - general counsel would mean in connection to current pending doom. It must be cheaper to spend say $25 Million to get a General Counsel that can help or has connections in a particular situation rather then to lose a hundred million dollar case or deal.
Regarding Daniel Cooperman's Hiring....
At this Time, Nov. 2007, the Media Outlets discused that the then General Counsel at APPLE Donald Rosenberg would be leaving after ONLY 10 Months on the JOB, and that Donald Rosenberg had $30 Million in those seemingly hard to get, coveted "Restricted Apple Stocks".
What is so Important about what these General Counsel's bring to APPLE that after 10 months they have $30 Million in "Restricted Apple Stocks" ? WoW they sure must do something WORTH hundreds of Millions in that Short Time - or How could this Twisted Game be Worth it?
Donald Rosenberg had been an East Coast IBM lawyer, Before Coming to APPLE for those Short 10 months, so surely Donald Rosenberg had the Connections to Get APPLE Out of What Ever November 2007 Legal Mess they were in.
There was Some Reason APPLE needed Rosenberg and there was some Immediate Reason that after 10 months Donald Rosenberg would Leave APPLE for the HURRIED hiring of Daniel Cooperman only to have Daniel Cooperman leave with the same sense of urgency to Hire D. Bruce Sewell due to whatever Connections, Affiliations, Deals, and Perks he could bring to APPLE to get them out of their Current Legal Messes. (FTC, Patent Lawsuits, SEC ... )
When Daniel Cooperman Came to APPLE, his "Experience" and Connections were seemingly to help APPLE out of some SEC Civil Charges... as this Quote from the Article Below.
"" Apple has had its own troubles. Rosenberg's predecessor at Apple, Nancy Heinen, faces SEC civil charges in connection with stock option backdating. Heinen's lawyers have said she did nothing wrong. Apple's share price has doubled in less than a year and as its business grows, so too do the potential legal issues.
" Dan is a proven quantity: He's operated in a fast-moving environment where there were a lot of deals, a lot of innovation, a lot of really smart people with no shortage of forceful personality," said Robert Major, a longtime GC recruiter with Major Lindsey & Africa who was not involved in Cooperman's hire. "[Jobs] wanted someone from the Valley, he wanted someone who was familiar to him." ""
Article I am Discussing
"" Bite of Apple Is Sweet for New GC
November 06, 2007
"Just how badly did Apple want to hire Daniel Cooperman?
Enough to give the former Oracle general counsel 133,000 shares of restricted stock, worth about $25 million at the end of trading Thursday when the company announced the grant. And enough that Apple CEO Steve Jobs handled his recruitment personally, according to an individual familiar with the situation who did not want to be named.
Apple named Cooperman GC on Sept. 28, the same day it was announced that then-GC Donald Rosenberg would be leaving for Qualcomm after only 10 months on the job. The triple play was completed when Oracle announced it was promoting Dorian Daley to its top legal spot.
Donald Rosenberg had restricted Apple stock worth about $30 million at the time he left, and the first quarter of that was scheduled to vest Dec. 1.
Rosenberg's new job doesn't seem to offer as much upside. A Qualcomm regulatory filing shows he received 500,000 options at about $40 a share, or about a dollar below where the shares closed Friday.
Jobs began talking with Cooperman in the summer, at least by August, according to someone familiar with the situation. The Apple boss also talked with Oracle CEO Larry Ellison -- the two are known to be friends -- before getting serious with Cooperman.
"I don't think [Cooperman] met anyone else in the company until Jobs had talked to Ellison personally," said an individual familiar with the situation.
Recruiters say that a demanding boss like Jobs probably saw Cooperman as a crucial hire.
"You need someone who's really seasoned, who's really trusted -- and whose general counsel would you trust more than your best friend's general counsel?" said Martha Africa, a longtime recruiter, now with Hodge Niederer Cariani Lindsay, who was not involved in Cooperman's placement.
Lawyers and legal recruiters speculated that Rosenberg, an East Coast IBM lawyer before coming to Apple, wasn't the best fit for the Silicon Valley company. But few details have emerged about the circumstances of his departure.
Nor is it entirely clear whether it was Cooperman's arrival or Rosenberg's departure that sparked the three-way move.
A Qualcomm spokesperson said the San Diego chipmaker conducted a nationwide search for a new general counsel in mid-summer, but declined to say when the company first contacted Rosenberg. The company's longtime general counsel, Louis Lupin, departed in mid-August, after a series of setbacks.
In any event, Qualcomm was pleased to welcome Rosenberg: The company gave him more options than it had given its chief financial officer or chief technical officer last year.
"If his grant is not out of line with the other senior executives, it shows that they're considering him one of their top executives," said Tom LaWer, a principal at Compensia Inc., an executive compensation consulting shop in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Qualcomm is engaged in a broad array of litigation against rival Broadcom Corp., along with other companies. At the time of Lupin's departure, Qualcomm had suffered a host of litigation defeats, and in one, a San Diego judge found that Qualcomm's legal team had committed "litigation misconduct," and may impose sanctions.
Apple has had its own troubles. Rosenberg's predecessor at Apple, Nancy Heinen, faces SEC civil charges in connection with stock option backdating. Heinen's lawyers have said she did nothing wrong. Apple's share price has doubled in less than a year and as its business grows, so too do the potential legal issues.
"Dan is a proven quantity: He's operated in a fast-moving environment where there were a lot of deals, a lot of innovation, a lot of really smart people with no shortage of forceful personality," said Robert Major, a longtime GC recruiter with Major Lindsey & Africa who was not involved in Cooperman's hire. "[Jobs] wanted someone from the Valley, he wanted someone who was familiar to him."
Daniel Cooperman has cashed in about $6.8 million worth of Oracle stock since late September around the time his move was announced. Meanwhile, Oracle's new GC, Daley, received options to buy 150,000 shares at $20.75 in mid-October.
Rosenberg did not return phone calls. Apple representatives declined to comment beyond the company's initial press release.""
Link to Source:
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1194257038059
APPLE - Durward Bruce Sewell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)