Greenberg Traurig Law Firm

Proskauer Rose Law Firm continues to be Protected for White Collar Crimes, Perjury, Patent Theft, Investor Fraud, Stealing Inventions, Defrauding Clients, Billing Fraud and More in the Case of iViewit Technologies.

2011-12-29T21:08:00.000-08:00

Proskauer Rose LLP - Billing Discrepancies - Missing Pages and ... More on Proskauer Rose involved in iViewit Technology Theft.

Proskauer Rose Billing Entries

Proskauer Rose Missing Paid Bills

Iviewit Holdings Missing Page

Iviewit General Corporate Advice

Iviewit General Corporate Advice P16

Iviewit General Corporate Advice - Missing Page

Numbers Done in Different Text Document

Missing Page Number in Different Font

General Corporate Advice P17

Missing Page

Proskauer Rose Lawyers WERE involved in the iViewit Scandal

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Eye on Proskauer Rose

Original Post by Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox to WARN others of what Proskauer Rose Law Firm has done and how the Wall of Corruption in New York and Florida Courts protect Proskauer Rose, as does the SEC, the DOJ, the FBI, and the USPTO.
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-billing.html

Joseph Leccese, Protected Elite Law Firm Proskauer Rose IGNORES the Crimes of Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein in the iViewit Technology Theft

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Patent Attorney from Proskauer Rose LLP - Working with MPEG LA. Kenneth Rubenstein Perjured himself in Depositions Regarding the Iviewit Technologies Patents in Which Kenneth Rubenstein was Directly Involved in Derailing the Rightful Inventors to Getting their Rightful Patent.

MPEG LA - with the Help of Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney, Pooled the Technology in patents and well the Iviewit Inventors NEVER got rights or any compensation for the Mult-Trillion Dollar Invention that WE ALL USE.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6 - Final

www.Iviewit.TVFor More on Iviewit

http://www.proskauerfraud.com/
more on Proskauer Rose Corruption

http://www.alexisdevane.com/
more on MPEG LA Corruption and Kenneth Rubenstein
Corrupt Patent Attorney.

posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Gregg Mashberg Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Shareholder Fraud.

Gregg Mashberg Proskauer Rose Law Firm is covering up Massive Shareholder Fraud in the iViewit Technology Theft involving Proskauer Rose Patent Attorneys.
NDAY, JANUARY 3, 2010

United States District Judge

Re: Bernstein V. Appellate Division, First Department

"Dear Judge Scheindlin:

We represent defendants Proskaur Rose LLP, Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane, and the Estate of Stephen R. Kaye. We write to request a pre-motion conference in order to bring a motion to (i) stay service of Plaintiff's amended complaint, due to be filed by May 10, 2008, on all of the new defendants to be named therein...., pending your Honor's disposition of the motions to dismiss the amended comlaint... to be filed ... by the defendants named in the original complaint...

...

Source of Post and Full Document Click Below

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20Proskauer%20to%20Scheindlin%20to%20block%20amended.pdf

Proskauer Rose Law Firm controls Judges, SEC, USPTO, DOJ, FBI and More in the Cover up of a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent Theft over the iViewit Technology

Proskauer Rose LLP - Kenneth Rubenstein, MPEG LA - Judge Jorge Labarga - Iviewt Theft - Proskauer Rose Perjury - Proskauer Rose Law Firm.

Proskauer Rose Attorney - Proof of Corruption and Coverups in Iviewit Stolen Technology

2003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.
2003 10 30 Department of Justice complaint filed against Rubenstein and others for antitrust violations including their MPEGLA patent pooling scheme and claims that the DOJ approved the scheme.

2003 11 17 - Final Judgment against Iviewit in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case. Judgment was issued by Judge Jorge Labarga, after he cancelled the first trial with no notice to Iviewit or either of their law firms, Selz & Muvdi and Schiffrin & Barroway. At the rescheduling hearing both Schiffrin & Barroway and Selz Muvdi withdrew as counsel stating the other would be handling the case. Labarga let both go instead, despite the fact that Schiffrin & Barroway had signed a binding LOU/Legal Retainer agreement to represent Iviewit at the case. This forced Iviewit to have no counsel and days later Labarga ruled a default on Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel. Iviewit could not find counsel that fast in a almost three year case and Schiffrin and Selz refused to turn over necessary files needed to find new counsel or file an appeal.

2003 11 17 - Final Judgment against Iviewit in the Proskauer v. Iviewit case. Judgment was issued by Judge Jorge Labarga, after he cancelled the first trial with no notice to Iviewit or either of their law firms, Selz & Muvdi and Schiffrin & Barroway. At the rescheduling hearing both Schiffrin & Barroway and Selz Muvdi withdrew as counsel stating the other would be handling the case. Labarga let both go instead, despite the fact that Schiffrin & Barroway had signed a binding LOU/Legal Retainer agreement to represent Iviewit at the case. This forced Iviewit to have no counsel and days later Labarga ruled a default on Iviewit for failure to retain replacement counsel. Iviewit could not find counsel that fast in a almost three year case and Schiffrin and Selz refused to turn over necessary files needed to find new counsel or file an appeal.

2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.

2003 11 10 - The Florida Bar letter response refusing to start investigation of Christopher Clark Wheeler of Proskauer and his bar complaint.Source of Proskauer Rose - iViewit Post
http://www.deniedpatent.com/search/label/Proskauer%20Rose%20LLP

Original Proskauer Rose Corruption over Iviewit post by Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-kenneth-rubenstein.html

Proskauer Rose Law Firm is Protected by New York Courts as they Participate in Massive Shareholder Fraud over the iViewit Scandal

Steven C. Krane, Esq. - Proskaur Rose Affiliations, Connections - Judith Kaye - Proskauer Rose involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Iviewit Technology Theft

New York's Wall of Corruption is Protected by Andrew Coumo and his Cronies. Inventors like Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit pay the price.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT COURT ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION OF KRANE

KRANE COMPLAINT TO NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT

Steven Krane - the Attorney's Attorney Providing Legal Advice to the Proskaur Rose Law Firm.

Proskaur.com Bio in Part.."Steven Krane is a Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Dpartment, co-head of the Law Firm Practice Group, concentrating in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility, and is Proskauer's General Counsel, responsible for providing professional legal advice to the firm.

Steven represents law firms and individual lawyers in a variety of professional matters, including rendering opinions and counseling them on a daily basis on a broad range of professional matters including conflicts of interest, client confidentiality, cross-border legal practice issues, partnership disputes, internal investigations, ancillary businesses and alternative business structures for law firms. In addition, he defends law firms in litigated proceedings involving legal malpractice and other civil claims, represents individual lawyers before grievance and disciplinary committees and assists lawyers in disputes concerning admission to the Bar.

He has served as a litigation consultant and expert witness testifying on a variety of issues such as conflicts of interest, litigation conduct, legal malpractice, billing disputes, and solicitation of clients by lawyers leaving a law firm.

Steven is among the nation’s leaders in developing and interpreting the rules governing the professional conduct of lawyers. He is the immediate past chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, on which he served since 2004.

For 14 years, he has led the New York State Bar Association committee that is responsible for formulating the ethical rules governing New York lawyers. In 2007, he was appointed by Chief Judge Kaye to be co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law. He served as vice-chair of the NYSBA Special Committee on the Law Governing Firm Structure and Operation (the “MacCrate Committee”), chaired the successor to that committee, the Special Committee on Multidisciplinary Practice, and was recently named Vice-Chair of the International Bar Association Committee on Multidisciplinary Practices. "

More Gibberish at Source of Link
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/steven-krane/

Below Fromwww.Iviewit.TV

Former New York State Bar President and member of Disciplinary Committees and Ethics boards nationwide. Ordered for investigation of conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department.

The investigation has so far been thwarted, through further conflicts in New York, typical New York crooked politics but being from the Windy City, so named for corrupt politics, this will be New York's Greylord.

It was learned that conflict in New York led all the way to Chief Judge Judith Kaye, you guessed it, married to a Proskauer partner, a partner like Krane, Stephen Kaye, G0d now prancing upon his recently departed soul although he was soulless while living towards the end, a partner who was instantly added to newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department (formed instantly after learning of my inventions), although he had no history in IP law, hmmm.

Judge Judy Kaye is also conflicted up the butt with Krane, as he was her former whipping boy, serving as her lapdog clerk.

Krane attempts to use influence peddling like never before seen in Gotham to earn his Proskauer intellectual property partnership wings by blocking Iviewit never revealing his conflicts, until two years into the complaints when news of his conflicts surfaced.

Steven Krane and Judith Kaye (Judge Judy is now the proud conflicted owner of her dead husband Stephen Kaye's Proskauer shares of Iviewit) then had to bury the New York Supreme Court ordered investigation against them and the Proskauer partners, and in a feat unsurpassed in the annals or anals of New York, he ass kisses or offers it for the taking widely, to evade the investigation without even having to give a statement in his defense.

After five Supreme Court Justices unanimously voted for an INVESTIGATION, Stephen Krane, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Anthony Joao, did not even have to provide a response to that court, nor provide one to the department charged with the investigations.

Instead those disciplinary departments wrote little old me how they were going to dismiss it without investigation based on that he was a nice guy basically. It was as if the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, was actually doing his defense, as they tendered all letters on his behalf, he did not answer a single question or put forth a statement in his defense. You guessed it, the First Department and the Second Department are controlled by Proskauer attorneys, those charged with investigating the conflicts, upon a little scratch of the surface were also found in conflict with the matters, Krane and Kaye, and yet they continued handling the complaints against Proskauer and its partners. So assured that top down control of the courts could never be penetrated with Judith Kaye and Stephen Krane controlling them that they acted as if they were above the law.

Perhaps they are above the law, in crime festered New York but they are not above the law of G0d.

Of course I did not order the investigation, a bunch of judges did.

So it begs one to ask why they confronted me to try and evade the investigations and not the court that ordered it. The answer, they could not answer the court with the results of the investigation, as no investigation was ever done and they tried to claim dismissing the case on review was equal to an investigation.

No witnesses were called, no evidence submitted tested, these guys did not even have to tender a response.

How much payola do you think that it costs to buy off three court ordered investigations? With the help of Judge Judy Kaye and some very large illegal gains from the stolen technologies to make people obfuscate their public office duties, they have succeeded but for the moment at evading charges.

Steven Krane stands as the most despicable man in the history of legal ethics, currently found trying to amend laws to protect him and others from prosecution. Perhaps Ken Lay hired him to write some laws to prevent loss of his estate from death or the Bush group has him rewriting war codes to justify torture and protect from prosecution.

Either way, there may soon be a lot of Proskauer and other corrupted lawyers cited herein, wishing for an artery to pop to the brain, with Krane's obese gluttony, he will be first. (I was wrong here, Judy's husband Stephen Krane, G0d unrest his soul, was the first to leave this earthly world for hell for his actions.)

Krane Complaint First Department Exposing Conflicts and Violations of Public Office. Krane then goes on to really fuck himself when he writes his own defense of his bar complaint, failing to disclose his conflicting positions at the disciplinary department and further concealing them in an effort to deny he was caught, this little lie cost him orders for investigation.

Krane Suicide Letter

Steven Krane was busted immediately following that letter, after Clerk of the Court, Catherine O’Hagan Wolf identified that Steven Krane was in fact a member of the disciplinary committee that his letter denied, in fact she sat on several committee’s with Steven Krane and was stunned that he would be handling a complaint against himself or his partners, she suggested Iviewit file the Motion with the Court that led to the unanimous ruling for investigation.

OK breaking news in November 2007 comes in the form of Krane's buddy at the First Department, Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York First Department, DDC. Thomas Cahill is busted for burying and whitewashing complaints against attorneys that he is charged with investigating.

Oh, shit gets really bad as the informant is an insider, a 62 yr old black female attorney, who is victimized, physically assaulted and terminated for her bravery to stand up to wrongdoings at the Department. In a $100M Federal Lawsuit, she names Iviewit in P. 97 of the complaint, as a cause of termination.

Oh shit, Thomas Cahill and Steven Krane and their scam exposed from the inside, Holy Cow Batman, Gotham Uppy Ups are going down, The New York Law Journal writes a story exposing Cahill and others for derailing complaints against attorneys, exactly what Iviewit is claiming to the Feds.

Holy Big Shit Batman, The New York Times follows with an even more devastating article and now New York is on fire, Kerik, the whole criminal political crime family composed of scumbag lawyers, judges and politicians is flaming downward, hell awaits, my smiling face to greet them.

All this shit started by an investigative reporter at Expose Corrupt Courts, a one ballsy Frank Brady, in a time of journalistic lack of integrity and complacency with the corruptions read by propaganda readers like Blitzer (whose his daddy), Sanchez (where did this guy get his journalistic wings) and other script readers, Brady emerges as something of a Ben Bradlee, a Woodward, a Bernstein.

My kudos also go to Dan Wise of the New York Law Journal and Paul Vitello of the New York Times for having the balls to expose corruption New York's Heart of Darkness."

Source:

http://www.iviewit.tv/

Eliot Bernstein Site on the Iviewit Stolent Patent

Original Proskauer Rose - iViewit Post

http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/steven-c-krane-esq-proskaur-rose.html

What Does Joseph Leccese at Proskauer Rose Law Firm have to say about Raymond Joao and connections to Proskauer Rose over the Iviewit Scandal ? Joseph Leccese

2011-12-29T20:31:00.000-08:00

Originally Posted at Link Below in an ongoing effort by Crystal Cox Blogger to expose corruption in our courts and to fight for the rights of Inventors and victims of the protection of Elite Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose and Foley &; Lardner.
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/what-does-head-guy-at-proskauer-rose.html

Teresa Rea, David Kappos, the USPTO, the SEC and More protect Warner Bros. with PROVEN documentation of Massive Shareholder Fraud.

2011-12-29T00:09:00.000-08:00

Warner Bros. Signed Non Disclosure Agreements with Iviewit, Warner Violated those Agreements. Warner Signed License and Service Agreements..

"Is the SEC Listening, LOOKING... do they even Care.. or will Mary Schapiro and the SEC just sit and wait for a Multi-Billion to Trillion Dollar Scandal and they say Whoops.. We had NO WAY to Know.. and then Of Course Investigative Blogger, Crystal L. Cox will have to Say What a Crock That is - Because does ANYONE at the SEC know How To work GOOGLE... ??? or any Search Engine Really.. or Possibly READ Complaints... ???

Warner Bros. - has broke the Law and in the process put shareholders at HUGE risk, why is Jeffrey Bewkes ignoring this blatant proof of Fraud.

Warner Bros signed multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements and Warner Bros. Signed License and Service Agreements with the Iviewit Company. 9 years have passed and Warner Bros. Blatantly and Illegally Violated those agreements long ago, why?

And Now Eliot Bernstein Founder and one of the Inventors it the Iviewit Stolen Patent has filed a very informative, incredibly detailed SEC Complaint. One that for Now Mary Schapiro and the SEC seems to be ignoring... I am not sure why just yet.. but hope to get tips on this soon...

Some of the Warner Bros' Iviewit Timeline and more details

of the Warner Bros. Relationship with the Iviewit Company.

" " 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 [5].

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.

· 2000-2002

Warner Bros et al. signs multiple Iviewit Non Disclosure Agreements.

Non-Disclosure Agreements @

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

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.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20001101%20Goldman%20Friedstein%20Letter%20from%20Buchsbaum%20re%20AOLTW%20Colter%20meetings.pdf

· January 11, 2001 ~ America Online and Time Warner Complete Merger to Create AOL Time Warner

http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668364,00.html

· 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 @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf

August 15, 2001 Irell &; Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/Patents/Paul%20Allen/old%20patent/LEGAL/Irell%20&%20Manella/Bills/2001%2008%2029%20-%20Irell%20Bill.pdf

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 [6]. 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.

· April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. "Bill" Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL. AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010404%20Colter%20to%20Raduchel%20Leonsis%20referral%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf

· 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.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010525%20Sony%20Doug%20Chey%20Endorsement%20of%20Tech%20and%20Advisory%20Board%20Option%20letter.pdf

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100120%20Douglas%20Chey%20Sony%20Bio.pdf

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. ""

Source of Post and of Warner Bros SEC Complaint

So Where is Mary Schapiro on this One ? The SEC Flat out lies in their Fraudulent Whistleblower Program that in NO WAY protects Whistle Blower or promotes more Whistleblowers to come forward.

Blogger Crystal Cox has been fighting, posting for years to get the iViewit Story found in the Search Engines in hopes of getting the iViewit Inventors justice and in hopes of exposing the US Bankruptcy System involved in this patent theft, and the corruption in the USPTO, SEC, DOJ and more that protect the criminals and turn the victims into the bad guy, the criminals. This post was previously posted on link below in effort to EXPOSE Massive Shareholder Fraud with the Power of Internet Marketing and Search Engine Reputation Placement to get the crimes of the "Bad Guys" found.
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/warner-bros-signed-non-disclosure.html

iViewit Technology Theft. MPEG LA, DVD Licensing, Toshiba - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division

2011-12-28T18:08:00.000-08:00

More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement.Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?

June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General

" Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064

Dear Mr. Ramos:

This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Time Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.

You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.

I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats

The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.

(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.

The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,

(2) established the Standard Specifications.

(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.

II. The Proposed Arrangement

A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders

(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:

(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);

(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and

(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.

(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.

(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.

(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."

(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."

(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.

(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.

(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"

(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.

(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.

(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.

(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.

(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.

(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.

(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."

(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."

(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.

(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.

(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."

(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)

Full Letter and Source of Post
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/busreview/2485.htm

Save and Print the Above for Your Records.

Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY know that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.

No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.

More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.

http://www.iviewit.tv/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

my Original Post to Warn Shareholders, Expose Corruption, Fight for Inventors Rights and demand that the SEC, FBI, DOJ, USPTO and more investigate the crimes in the iViewit case and STOP ignoring the rights of victims in favor of Elite Law Firms such as Proskauer Rose LLP
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/mpeg-la-dvd-licensing-toshiba-letter.html

iViewit Technology vs. Proskauer Rose Law Firm. Ex-Supreme Court Judge Judith Kaye is Corrupt and Helped Proskauer Rose Committ Patent Theft and Massive Fraud.

2011-12-28T18:05:00.000-08:00

"Check out the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division:

First Department court orders for investigation of the former President of the New York State Bar Association Steven C. Krane by clicking on his picture for the document. This is the price of gluttony and greed and why the almighty one has deemed such a sin.

Steven Krane, Proskauer Rose LLP who is the epitome of ethics has lost his way and acted in conflict of interest and abuse of public office with both the First Department Disciplinary Committee and the New York State Bar Association in representing his partners while maintaining conflicting public office positions in the New York Supreme Courts and NYSBA.

Although his investigation has been temporarily de-railed, it will one day be completed as a formal investigation. Yet, while Krane clerked for Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye, who by the by, is married to a Proskauer partner, Stephen Kaye, who is one of the accused Proskauer Rose partners in the Intellectual Property Department (formed after learning of the Iviewit inventions), it looks like such forces are blocking the court ordered investigation through yet another series of conflicts and abuses in the investigating department.

Where it appears that Proskauer Rose LLP has positioned deep within the ethics departments and courts to block due process and stave off the inevitable.

Yet, as you read on, even these further desperate attempts to block prosecution have uncovered further conflicts which have only caused more people to become ensnared in the web of crimes and further complaints to be filed.

Where those complaints in some instances have been refused to file and docket by members of the departments acting to block complaints against themselves inapposite of the laws of those states.

Can you imagine, complaints filed against public officers where such officers than deny the complaints with out formal procedure, sounds like the old communist regime where citizens where unable to complain about their elected officials.

It does not sound like the good old USofA where we have a constitutional right to complain against our elected officials when they are found guilty of abuse of public office and as citizens we have an obligation to our country to file such charges. Yet, the onion is peeling and desperate times call for desperate measures. "

Source and Lots Morehttp://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm

the Above is about 1/4 the way down....

Posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger...

Original Post Exposing Corruption in the US Supreme Court that helped Proskauer Rose to keep a lid on the Iviewit Technology scandal that is involved in Massive Shareholder Fraud.
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/ex-supreme-court-judge-judith-kaye-is.html

Foley and Lardner Law Firm involved in Massive Shareholder Fraud in iViewit Technology Theft.

2011-12-28T18:01:00.000-08:00

Foley and Larder Patent Attorney Committ Massive Fraud and is Protected by US Courts.

"William J. Dick - foley and lardner - Virginia state bar rebuttal - it is interesting to note that dick in his response to the the vsb sends a portfolio patent docket that the united states patent & trademark office says has some false & misleading information contained in - such as certain patents that the company has no rights, title or interests in. the vsb refuses phone calls to re-investigate based on this information that has led to uspto and federal investigations of the matters.

In the dick exhibits you will see how iviewit got dicked around as the evidence appears that there are two sets of patents with similar names and different inventors. iviewit does not attest to these documents as factual representations of the original filings as much document tampering has occurred on the patent documents. "

Source and Lots More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm

Judith Kaye - Ex. Supreme Court Judge who Protected Proskauer Rose Law Firm for Her Special Interests and her Husband WAS a partner (Stephen Kaye) - and her formoer Clerk and Co-Concpirator Steven Kaye WAS also at Proskauer Rose LLP. Well Judith Kaye USE to Work with William Dick at IBM... the Conflicts of Interest KEEP Rolling out on the Iviewt Stolen Patent.

Foley &; Lardner – Doug Boehm, Steven Becker Bill Dick + Brain Utley Patent Crimes

Exhibit 1 – Case of inventor fraud perpetrated with I View It Counsel and Brian Utley

Exhibit 2 – How to claim others ideas as your own

Exhibit 7 – Case of Switching Inventors

Exhibit 9 – More on the Case of Walking Patents out of I View It and to your home

Exhibit 10 – Case of the Mismatched File Numbers on filed patent documents aka the cover-up

Exhibit 11 – Case of the changing patent titley

Exhibit 12 – Smudges & Fudges on 57013-112 and how to add your name to inventions that were invented without you

Exhibit 14 – Case of changing fonts again

Exhibit 16 – Case of bad math from an “engineer” and two certified engineers at Foley and Lardner, this is hours before filing, and the inventors have never seen these documents

Exhibit 20 – Cleaning up the mess of Utley Folly’s with Foley

Exhibit 22 – Another case of adding oneself to inventions one did not invent

Exhibit 33 – What happens to 57103/101

Previously Posted at
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2010/10/foley-and-larder-patent-attorney.html

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney for MPEG LA - Involves Attorney Raymond Anthony Joao.

2011-12-28T17:57:00.000-08:00

Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt Proskauer Rose Patent Attorney for MPEG LA - Involves Attorney Raymond Anthony Joao.

Kenneth Rubenstein 's lackey, attorney Raymond Anthony Joao, who was a patent attorney working DIRECTLY under Proskauer Rose Attorney Kenneth Rubenstein 's direction.

Raymond Joao now claims 90 patents in his own name and Iviewit gives him kudos as the greatest slime ball inventor and patent attorney.

No really, Iviewit considers our former counselors Raymond Joao and Kenneth Rubenstein to be nothing more than co-inventors of a system and method to defraud shareholders and inventors of their inventions and commit fraud upon worldwide patent intellectual property organizations, an invention that should carry some stiff federal sentences.

Click here for a press article on the amazing inventiveness of Joao

Raymond Joao was so non-inventive that many of these patents resemble ideas and concepts lifted straight from the Iviewit business plan and invention disclosures and ideas that he was supposed to be patenting for the inventors and shareholders.

More on Raymond Joao Click Here

Source of Above and LOTS More
http://iviewit.tv/about/index.htm

More on Iviewit Massive Shareholder Fraud

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

http://www.paulotellini.info/

http://intelcorruption.blogspot.com/

www.iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com "

Eliot Bernstein, Iviewit Technologies Notifies Governor Charlie Crist of Florida Corruption at Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum

2011-12-28T17:54:00.000-08:00

Eliot Bernstein Notifies Florida Governor of Massive Florida Corruption at the Suggestion of Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum.

" Friday, September 03, 2010

Hon. Governor Charlie Crist
Office of Governor Charlie Crist
State of Florida

Dear Honorable Governor Charlie Crist,

Per the Attorney General of the Great State of Florida, I write to you for inclusion into the ongoing Nineteenth Statewide Grand Jury, the Eliot Bernstein and Iviewit companies claims of criminal RICO and ANTITRUST activities by certain members of the Florida Supreme Court, the Florida Bar, the Boca Raton P.D., the law firms Proskauer Rose LLP, Foley & Lardner LLP and more.

The extent of these claims of Public Office Corruption reach the highest levels of Florida government and thus are germane to the Grand Jury’s request for information and stated purpose, “The Office of Statewide Prosecution has established a public corruption hotline for anyone who believes they have information concerning a criminal offense involving public corruption or wishes to suggest issues the Statewide Grand Jury should investigate regarding public corruption.

Below is a communication from Attorney General McCollum in response to my request to his offices for inclusion, whereby he urges me to contact and join your offices of these most serious allegations as well.

I am contacting your offices again, as I have contacted them in the past regarding these matters and am asking that your offices take all actions necessary to have these allegations investigated by the Florida Grand Jury your office has convened, as well as, any other criminal actions you may deem appropriate in investigating these matters and notifying the proper authorities of the allegations alleged herein and in the URL links provided herein.

I am happy to provide additional information or testimony relating to the matters to any investigators you deem appropriate or before the Grand Jury.

Many of these matters have crossed state lines through the law firms accused and in New York, a NY Supreme Court Whistleblower Christine Anderson, Esq. has identified a Racketeering type organization within not only the NY Courts and NY Disciplinary Agencies but the NY prosecutorial offices, including the US Attorney, the NY Attorney General Cuomo’s offices and the NY District Attorneys Office.

The allegations rise to senior members of these public offices acting in conspiracy to deprive due process to citizens’ complaints against them and in fact, a “Cleaner”, Naomi Goldstein of the NY Supreme Court was allegedly according to Anderson Whitewashing attorney complaints for these prosecutors. In addition, Anderson claims “favored lawyers and law firms” had their complaints cleaned as well.

The Anderson case now also involves Federal Obstruction of Justice in a federal Lawsuit, with death threats on Federal Witnesses on their way to testify in Federal Court. Extortion of state employees is also evidenced in Anderson, replete with physical assaults on the 60 yr. female Anderson, to either aid and abet or else by Senior New York Supreme Court Officials.

My Trillion Dollar Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit filed alongside and in support of Anderson’s Historic and Heroic Whistleblower claims, was legally “related” to the Anderson Whistleblower lawsuit by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin.

Many of the defendants in my Fed RICO and ANTITRUST are located here in Florida, in fact all of my claims began in Florida, as that is where my companies and myself were located at the time the criminal activities were first discovered.

Proskauer partners were ordered for Investigation for Conflicts of Interest and Violations of Public office by the New York Supreme Court, in a unanimous consent of five justices of that court but those investigations are now under investigation for their failure to investigate.

The allegations in NY are almost identical to those I filed in Florida just different players from the same firms often having infiltrated and violated public offices to deny due process to my complaints in violation of law and attorney and judicial conduct codes.

All of my complaints in Florida in the courts and to all state agencies are herein officially requested to be re-opened in light of the revelations of new and damning information revealed in Anderson and new evidence against certain defendants in my lawsuit from Florida.

New evidence includes Defendant Proskauer Rose LLP and Partner Thomas Sjoblom’s involvement in the ExSir Robert Allen Stanford Ponzi scheme, Sjoblom found aiding and abetting Stanford Employees in a Miami Airport Hanger teaching them how to lie to SEC and FBI investigators.
As you know, Proskauer has been sued in a Global Class Action for the entire damages of Stanford, approximately 7 Billion US Dollars. Another thread to Florida is another Defendant in my Fed RICO, now infamous Ponzi schemer, Marc S. Dreier, Esq., who has been sentenced to 20 years for his Ponzi scheme.

Greenberg Traurig law firm, who represents the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court in my Fed RICO, acting in conflict as Greenberg Traurig was also former Patent Counsel for my companies and myself, where Greenberg has recently been alleged running a large Ponzi scheme in Florida, more information below. A link too many of the Florida specific crimes can be found at
http://iviewit.tv/supreme%20court/index.htm

and

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/oneofthesedays/index.htm

Complaints filed in Florida with the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court are requested to be re-opened by your offices with oversight by your offices to mitigate any further conflicts of interest and violations of Public Offices and law.

Complaints filed with the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court against, Florida Bar employees, Florida Supreme Court Public Officials, Proskauer Partners Christopher Clarke Wheeler, Esq. who was convicted of Felony DUI with Injury in Florida and Matthew Triggs who violated Florida Bar Rules in handling Complaints in multiple conflicts and violation of public office of the Florida Bar, are also being requested herein to have formal investigations into the matters reheard entirely based on a plethora of new information and evidence against the defendants in those matters and again instituted with oversight of your offices.

Similarly, we are requesting that your offices investigate the Florida Civil Court Case Civil Case No. 502001CA004671XXCDAB with new evidence showing a complete fraud on the court was orchestrated by Proskauer and Judge Jorge Labarga of the Florida Supreme Court, prior to your appointment of Labarga to the Florida Supreme Court.

I also note that members of your inner staff are formerly with Defendant Foley & Lardner, who acted as Solicitor General to the Florida Supreme Court while my complaints were being reviewed by that Court.

I also note that Justice Jorge Labarga and several of the Florida Supreme Court Justice and Court Officials are Defendants in my Trillion Dollar Fed RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit. I also note that several members or former members of the Florida Bar are Defendants in my Trillion Dollar Fed RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.

Therefore, I request further that your offices in handling these matters proceed with extreme caution in ferreting out ALL Conflicts of Interest prior to involvement by any party, to preclude further possible charges against members of your office or any other party your offices join into these matters.

I have attached a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form for all parties, including yourself, to sign and return to my office at 2753 NW 34th St. Boca Raton, FL 33434, prior to ANY Actions you take in even considering the matter.

As a mass of Conflicts of Interest have been discovered in these matters already and the Whistleblower further identifying a criminal conspiracy within state agencies, this Conflict form is essential to ensuring fair and impartial due process of law by non conflicted parties. Any conflicts identified may be considered based on full disclosure and agreement by ALL parties involved or new non conflicted parties must be retained prior to disclosure of even the most basic information.

As these matters in New York and Florida are against some of the highest ranking officials in the states, I know that in New York Anderson and now other related cases and witnesses who testified to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee are seeking various forms of witness protection, I similarly would like to know what options for this type of protection are available to those who come forward in Florida.

As a car bombing victim of the RICO Criminal Enterprise, described in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit I feel that certain protections should already have been availed, in fact, I petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for such once already and this Motion is located at the URL

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004_10_07_Supreme_Court_Florida_Motion_Final_Cert_Signed.pdf
as well as, repeated requests since it was determined by Florida Fire Investigator Rick Lee that accelerants’ were the cause of the explosion that blew up three cars next to it, in Boynton Beach Florida. Despite repeated notice to Florida Law Enforcement, as you can see from the previous link they too were involved in the second act that protection from the court was requested for and therefore have never investigated these matters through public office corruption after public office corruption after public office corruption as defined herein and in the attached URL’s.

Please make all exhibits and links fully incorporated by reference herein into this letter for formal docketing in the Florida Grand Jury Request of Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit Companies, each URL may have several URL’s, also hereby incorporated entirely by reference herein and for further use by the Grand Jury.

As Whistleblower Anderson in a sworn statement has claimed that she witnessed document destruction of investigatory files first hand (Anderson’s Statement to the New York Judiciary Committee attached below), please print each and every url in entirety for inclusion into this document and due to the fact that these matters pertain to US Patent Rights of an inventor, please retain these files and information for a period of no less than 20 yrs.

There are over a thousand documents at the URL http://www.iviewit.tv/ on the homepage under the Evidence Section on the homepage for your review and for docketing with the complaints and for review by investigators or Grand Jurors.

Despite whether the Florida Grand Jury investigates these most serious allegations of corruption at the highest levels of Florida Government, let this letter also serve as a formal request that your offices begin all necessary notices and/or investigations and notify all investigatory bodies necessary to investigate all those persons named in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit from Florida and notify them of the new evidence and requests for an entire review of all prior actions by any Florida Agency listed herein or in the URL’s embedded herein.

Please formally notify the following offices of this submission, including but not limited to, the Florida Inspector General (copied herein), the Florida US Attorney, the necessary Florida District Attorneys and the Florida Attorney General of the allegations and information contained herein, please have all parties sign prior to acceptance of ANY materials a Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form, again prior to ANY actions or decisions being rendered or transfer of any confidential information.

Please take this communication as both a request to join the 19th Florida Grand Jury and Request for Formal Investigations of all of the following Florida Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST by the Florida Governor and Florida Attorney General’s offices, please docket a separate complaint for each Florida organization and individual listed below;

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, and, all of its Partners,

Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER C. WHEELER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MATTHEW M. TRIGGS in his official and individual
capacity for The Florida Bar and his professional and
individual capacities as a partner of Proskauer,

ALBERT T. GORTZ, in his professional
and individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER PRUZASKI, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MARA LERNER ROBBINS, in her professional
and individual capacities,AMENDED

DONALD “ROCKY” THOMPSON, in his COMPLAINT
professional and individual capacities,

GAYLE COLEMAN, in her professional
and individual capacities,

DAVID GEORGE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

GEORGE A. PINCUS, in his professional
and individual capacities,

GREGG REED, in his professional
and individual capacities,

LEON GOLD, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MARCY HAHN-SAPERSTEIN, in her professional
and individual capacities,

KEVIN J. HEALY, in his professional
and individual capacities,

STUART KAPP, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RONALD F. STORETTE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

CHRIS WOLF, in his professional
and individual capacities,

JILL ZAMMAS, in her professional
and individual capacities,

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, and, all of its Partners,
Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

MICHAEL C. GREBE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

WILLIAM J. DICK, in his professional
and individual capacities,

STATE OF FLORIDA,

OFFICE OF THE STATE COURTS ADMINISTRATOR FLORIDA,

HON. JORGE LABARGA in his official and individual capacities,

THE FLORIDA BAR,

JOHN ANTHONY BOGGS in his official and individual capacities,

KELLY OVERSTREET JOHNSON in her official
and individual capacities,

LORRAINE CHRISTINE HOFFMAN in her
official and individual capacities,

ERIC TURNER in his official and individual
capacities,

KENNETH MARVIN in his official and individual
capacities,

JOY A. BARTMON in her official and individual
capacities,

JERALD BEER in his official and individual
capacities,BROAD & CASSEL, and, all of its Partners,

Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and
individual capacities,

JAMES J. WHEELER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,

HON. CHARLES T. WELLS, in his official and
individual capacities,

HON. HARRY LEE ANSTEAD, in his official and
individual capacities

HON. R. FRED LEWIS, in his official and
individual capacities,

HON. PEGGY A. QUINCE, in his official and
individual capacities,

HON. KENNETH B. BELL, in his official and
individual capacities,

THOMAS HALL, in his official and individual
capacities,

DEBORAH YARBOROUGH in her official and
individual capacities,

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION – FLORIDA,

CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLA.

BOCA RATON Police Department

ROBERT FLECHAUS in his official and
individual capacities,

ANDREW SCOTT in his official and individual
capacities,

CROSSBOW VENTURES, INC.,
ALPINE VENTURE CAPITAL PARTNERS LP,

STEPHEN J. WARNER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RENE P. EICHENBERGER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

H. HICKMAN “HANK” POWELL, in his
professional and individual capacities,

MAURICE BUCHSBAUM, in his professional
and individual capacities,

ERIC CHEN, in his professional
and individual capacities,

AVI HERSH, in his professional
and individual capacities,

MATTHEW SHAW, in his professional
and individual capacities,

BRUCE W. SHEWMAKER, in his professional
and individual capacities,

RAVI M. UGALE, in his professional
and individual capacities,

DIGITAL INTERACTIVE STREAMS, INC.,

ROYAL O’BRIEN, in his professional
and individual capacities,

HUIZENGA HOLDINGS INCORPORATED,

WAYNE HUIZENGA, in his professional
and individual capacities,

WAYNE HUIZENGA, JR., in his professional
and individual capacities,

HOUSTON & SHAHADY, P.A., and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

BART A. HOUSTON, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

FURR & COHEN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

BRADLEY S. SCHRAIBERG, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

MOSKOWITZ, MANDELL, SALIM & SIMOWITZ, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

WILLIAM G. SALIM, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

SACHS SAX & KLEIN, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

BEN ZUCKERMAN, ESQ. in his professional and individual capacities,

SPENCER M. SAX, in his professional and individual capacities,

SCHIFFRIN &; BARROWAY LLP, and any successors, and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

RICHARD SCHIFFRIN, in his professional and individual capacities,

ANDREW BARROWAY, in his professional and individual capacities,

KRISHNA NARINE, in his professional and individual capacities,

CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A., and, all of its Partners, Associates and Of Counsel, in their professional and individual capacities,

ALAN M. WEISBERG, in his professional and individual capacities,

ALBERTO GONZALES in his official and individual capacities, "

******

Above Letter From Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Technologies Founder and Main Inventor to Florida's Governor Charlie Crist ... AGAIN... What will Governor Charlie Crist of Florida do with this Knowing of Blatant and Widespread Corruption This Time ??

I will Let You Know.
In My Opinion, if Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and if Governor Charlie Crist IGNORES this information, Well Time for a RICO Lawsuit, a Whistleblower Lawsuit AGAINST the STATE of FLORIDA for aiding and abetting Massive Shareholder Fraud, Major Crime and Corruption, Government Corruption and for Hiding Secrets that will Cost Taxpayers - Investors - Shareholders BILLIONS of Dollars.

More on the Massive Corruption in Florida

http://floridagrandjury.blogspot.com/

Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

got a Tip on Corruption in Florida,
or on Bill McCollum Florida Attorney General,
Or On Governor Charlie Crist ??
eMail me
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

iViewit Technology Theft - Curtis Lu Time Warner Inc. General Counsel LEAVES without Disclosing Massive Liability to Time Warner Board and Shareholders

2011-12-28T17:49:00.000-08:00

Before Curtis Lu Left Time Warner, Curtis Lu Called Iviewit Founder Eliot Bernstein. How Much Risk Does Harbinger Capital Partners Investors Now Have ?

LightSquared now has Massive Liability in Curtis Lu as their General Counsel.

The Investors of Harbinger Capital Partners Will Pay the Price.

Do your Homework - it's YOUR Money ~ It's Your Life.

Curtis Lu Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) Contacts Eliot Bernstein April 15, 2010, after OVER a Decade in which Time Warner NEW of the Iviewit Technologies Massive Liability to the Time Warner Inc. and Related Companies.

Time Warner used this Technology and Continues
to VIOLATE Signed Agreements to This Day.
Time Warner has Violated Licensing Agreements with Iviewit Tech., and Violated NBA agreements. Curtis Lu - Time Warner IGNORES Massive Shareholder FRAUD then Conveniently Leaves Time Warner for the Harbinger Capital Partners - Philip Falcone investment of LightSquared.

Marc Garber of Flaster Greenberg and Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies Speaks with Curtis Lu of Time Warner Inc. About the RISK and Liability that Time Warner Faces over the Massive Fraud of the Stolen Iviewit Technology.

Curtis LU admitted he was familiar with the situation, and KNOWS all the Details and Liabilites and FAILED to Warn the Time Warner Board, Time Warner Shareholders.

"April 15, 2010 call prior to filing formal SEC Complaint and giving Time Warner a last chance to pay the true and proper inventor of Digital Imaging and Video Scaling Inventions and avoid further actions. "

After all is Said and Done, Curtis Lu Time Warner Inc. General Counsel - Now the General Counsel at Harbinger Capital Partners - Lightsquared.. well at the end Curtis Lu says he is Going to Go Back to His "Client" and Get THEIR "Reaction"

Well you Sure Gotta wonder what the Clients Reaction Was - I Mean that Next Month Curtis Lu went to some Convention where he talked about future issues and potential problems with Intellectual Property Rights - what a Joke that was.. and a few months later Curtis Lu, Time Warner Inc. Leaves Time Warner to be the General Counsel of Harbinger Capital Partners - Philip Falcone Multi-Billion Dollar Investment of a Company Called "Lightsquared" - which seems to think they will take over as the Leading Wireless, Internet Company in a couple of short years.

Ok so did Jeffrey Bewkes FIRE Curtis Lu, Time Warner Inc. - or Did They Cut a Deal where Curtis Lu would Leave with benefits and a good record? Did Jeff Bewkes WARN the Board of Directors at Time Warner Inc. or the Shareholders of Time Warner Inc. ?

WHO Did "Curtis Lu" - General Council of Time Warner actual "Get Back To?" and what did THEY really say to Curtis Lu, Time Warner Inc. General Counsel.

Curtis Lu is Involved in the SEC Complaint and Suit and will CERTAINLY call Eliot.. well Curtis Lu never did get back to Eliot. So What REALLY Happened?

Eliot Gave Time Warner, Curtis Lu Very Good Options and Well Curtis Lu was either FIRED or Simply Left Time Warner Inc. Right After This. Why? What is the REAL truth of Curtis Lu Leaving Time Warner for Philip Falcone - Harbinger Capital Partners, Star Investment LightSquared?

How Much Risk Does Harbinger Capital Partners Investors Now Have ?

Why is the NEW Time Warner General Counsel Paul T. Cappuccio IGNORING this Massive Shareholder Fraud and Failing to Disclose this Multi-Trillion Dollar Liability?

Well this is Massive Fraud and it is Easily PROVEN though Mary L. Schapiro the Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission seems to so far Ignore over 1200 documents and 10 years of proof, it is still proven and the Shareholders of Time Warner Inc., AOL, Warner Bros., Sony, Intel Corp., Lockheed Martin, IBM, and Many more will pay Trillions.. oh WEll Right .. Jeffrey Bewkes and Mary Schapiro and all the Others at the Top will not pay,odds are they have already hid their assets, I mean they have known this was coming for a VERY long time and STILL they sit on it. .the MOTIVE?

TO make sure they get THEIRS before the Investors / Shareholders take the inevitable financial hit that they will indeed take. .

So what did Jeffrey Bewkes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer really have to say about the now famed call from Time Warner Inc. - General Counsel Curtis Lu to Eliot Bernstein Iviewit Founder and One of the Inventors of the Mult-Trillion Dollar Iviewit Technology that Time Warner has made Billions on Top of Billions on and all the while knowing they had STOLEN the Technology and Violated SIGNED agreements with Iviewit. Where is Jeffrey Bewkes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer on this?

"Jeff Bewkes is Chairman and CEO of Time Warner Inc. He was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors in January 2009, having served on the Board since January 2007. He was elected CEO of the Company in January 2008. "

Jeff Bewkes KNOWS of Massive Fraud and Neglects to TELL the Time Warner Board. Jeff Bewkes is GUILTY of Massive Shareholder Fraud and WILL BE indicted. This is Criminal, this is Immoral and Folks.. there is over 1200 Documents of Proof on top of other massive information. This is Fact, Jeff Bewkes Time Warner KNOWS it and DOES nothing to Warner you THE board, the investors of Time Warner Inc. - Why?

Part 1 - Curtis Lu for Time Warner Inc.

Part 2 Curtis Lu - Time Warner General Counsel

Part 3 - Curtis Lu - Time Warner General Council FAILS
to Disclose Massive Shareholder Liability.

So Curtis Lu, Ask Yourself, How Much "Risk" - Liability did you Bring to Philip Falcone and to LightSquared which is raking in billions of investors money to be the NEW "internet network" that takes over all others.

Yet Curtis Lu is their General Council and is named in a Federal RICO Lawsuit and an SEC Complaint and KNOWS of a Mult-Trillion Dollar Shareholder Fraud involving his Former Employer Time Warner Inc. - Well Curtis Lu, Lightsqared General Counsel is Sure in Deep on this.

Time Warner Massive Liability - There is Proof that Time Warner Inc. was Infringing on this Technology, tons of the proof, and Yet Time Warner Inc. DOES not have This Liability Reported on the Books, WHY?

"We Should Have Been Disclosing?" - Curtis Lu asks.. GEE .. umm.. hmm..

"So Uh, are we.. uh is Time Warner a Defendent in all this? "

Time Warner Inc. has a Massive Undisclosed Liability...

So What Does the Time Warner Inc. Board have to Say about all this?

Jeffrey L. Bewkes
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Time Warner Inc.

James L. Barksdale
Chairman and President, Barksdale Management Corporation

William P. Barr
Former Attorney General of the United States

Stephen F. Bollenbach
Former Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hilton Hotels Corporation

Frank J. Caufield
Co-Founder and Partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield &; Byers

Robert C. Clark
Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard University

Mathias Döpfner
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, Axel Springer AG

Jessica P. EinhornDean, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), Johns Hopkins University

Fred Hassan
Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Schering-Plough Corporation

Michael A. MilesSpecial Limited Partner, Forstmann Little & Company

Kenneth J. Novack
Senior Counsel, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC

Deborah C. WrightChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Carver Bancorp, Inc.

What Do the Senior Corporate Executives at Time Warner Have to Say?

Jeffrey L. BewkesChairman and Chief Executive Officer

Paul T. CappuccioExecutive Vice President and General Counsel

Patricia Fili-KrushelExecutive Vice President, Administration

Gary L. GinsbergExecutive Vice President, Corporate Marketing and Communications

John K. Martin
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Carol A. Melton
Executive Vice President, Global Public Policy

Olaf Olafsson
Executive Vice President

Connected Time Warner Inc. Companies
Global Media Group, HBO - Home Box Office, Warner Bros. Entertainment,Time Inc., Turner Broadcasting System, AOL - ALL Liable for this Multi-Trillion Dollar Stolen Technology.

More Links to the Iviewit Stolen Technology Story
http://www.iViewit.tv/

http://www.DeniedPatent.com/

http://www.JeffreyBewkes.com/

Greenberg Traurig involved in a Massive Shareholder Alleged Fraud, Conspiracy and Corruption over iViewit Technologies.

2011-11-11T14:22:00.000-08:00

the Iviewit Technology Story - Proskauer Rose, MPEG LA, Greenberg Traurig

The iViewit Technologies Story involves some of the biggest tech, media, law firms in the world, Click Below for more on the iViewit Technology Story.

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

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

http://www.dougchey.com/

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

RICO Time for Greenberg Trauig?

2011-10-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

" Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

* Currently before the Court is Plaintiff-Appellee Daniel O. Conwill, IV’s
(“Conwill”) motion to dismiss the cross-appeals of Defendants-Cross-Appellants
Greenberg Traurig, L.L.P. (“Greenberg”) and Jay Gordon (collectively
“Defendants-Appellants”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
Conwill’s motion and DISMISSES the cross-appeals.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff-Appellee Conwill filed this action in the Eastern District of
Louisiana alleging a claim of racketeering under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 28 U.S.C. § 1964, and a variety of
Louisiana state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty.

In July 2010, the district court granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants-Appellants, finding that Conwill’s RICO claim was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations, the claim for breach of fiduciary duty was not time barred because it is subject to a ten-year
prescriptive period under Louisiana law, and all of the other state law claims
were time-barred due to application of a one-year prescriptive period.

Subsequently, in March 2011, the district court granted a second motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants-Appellants, dismissing the RICO claim as barred by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim for breach
of fiduciary duty.

The district court then entered final judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellants, dismissing all of the claims, with the exception of the fiduciary duty claim, with prejudice, and the fiduciary duty claim without
prejudice.

Plaintiff-Appellee Conwill appealed the judgment, and DefendantsAppellants subsequently cross-appealed, arguing alternative grounds to affirm, as well as appealing the district court’s interlocutory decision that the breach of fiduciary duty claim was not time-barred. Plaintiff-Appellee Conwill later
1
dismissed his appeal and then filed the instant motion to dismiss DefendantsAppellants’ cross-appeals. "

Source of Quote and Full Document
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/11/11-30360.0.wpd.pdf

DBA BEACON CUTTER TRUST - KATHEEN P. DWYER, Trustee - GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP,

2011-05-13T18:09:00.000-07:00

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
___________________________________
)
In re: )
)
CAMILLE VITIELLO and ) Case No. 09-19213-JNF
FRANCO VITIELLO, )
DBA BEACON CUTTER TRUST, )
)
Debtors )
______________________________ )
_____________________________ )
)
KATHEEN P. DWYER, Trustee )
)
PLAINTIFF )
)
v. ) ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
) No. 10-1179
MARCIA H. LANGLEY, )
GREENBERG TRAURIG P.A. and )
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP, )
)
DEFENDANTS )
___________________________________ )
FIRST AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
TO RECOVER DAMAGES
Kathleen P. Dwyer, duly appointed Trustee in Bankruptcy for the above-named
debtors, brings this action against Marcia H. Langley and Greenberg Traurig, LLP to
recover damages caused by professional negligence, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and statutory unfair and deceptive acts (G.L. c. 93A §11).
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 1 of 23

PARTIES
1. Kathleen P. Dwyer, Esquire, is the duly appointed Chapter 7 Trustee for the
benefit of the debtors.

2. Marcia H. Langley (hereinafter “Langley”) is an attorney licensed to practice law
in the State of Florida and resides at 17048 Castlebay Ct, Boca Raton, FL 33496-
5940.

3. Greenberg Traurig P.A. (hereinafter “Greenberg”) is Florida professional
association with offices in Florida.

4. Greenberg Traurig, LLP is a New York limited liability partnership engaged in
the practice of law in Massachusetts and other states and foreign countries.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334.
6. This adversary proceeding constitutes a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
157(b)(2)(O).
7. This District is the proper venue for this proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
The Debtors
8. Debtor Camille Vitiello (hereinafter “Camille”) is the Trustee of the Beacon
Cutters Trust. The Trust held title to the real estate located at 1676 Beacon Street
in Brookline, Massachusetts (hereinafter, “the Property”).
9. The Property comprised the principal asset of the Bankruptcy Estate.
10. Camille Vitiello’s husband of over 40 years, Franco, is the sole beneficiary of the
Beacon Cutters Trust.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 2 of 23

11. The Property played a central role in the lives of Camille , Franco and their son,
Stephen, for nearly 30 years. It has been the location of the Vitiello family’s
beauty salon and electrolysis business since 1982. It has provided a substantial
portion of the Vitiello family’s income and living. The Property was the last
remaining piece of real estate owned by the Debtors, who had hoped and planned
to utilize the value of the Property to enable them to retire.

12. At all times material herein, the Property was subject to a First Mortgage in favor
of Citizens Bank, which mortgage contained a standard mortgage clause that
prohibited any subsequent encumbrance or liens on the property without the prior
written consent of Citizens.
13. The Debtors’ son, Stephen Vitiello (hereinafter “Stephen”), resides in Florida and
is in the business of real estate development. His real estate business is operated
through the Acorn Development Corp., in which Camille and Franco each own a
5% interest. For the purposes of this Amended and Supplemental Complaint, the
term “Stephen” shall refer to Stephen Vitiello and any of the business entities
organized by him under which he engaged in an attorney-client relationship with
Langley and/or Greenberg Traurig P.A. in relation to the transaction at issue in
this matter.

Stephen Vitiello’s Relationship With Langley & Greenberg Traurig P.A.
14. At all times material to this action, Stephen’s general real estate development
business interests were represented by Langley, a shareholder member of
Greenberg P.A. in its Boca Raton office.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 3 of 23
! 4
15. Langley represented Stephen in various real estate business matters from
approximately 2002 until the end of July 2008 (after closing the transaction which
is the subject matter of this litigation).

16. During the course of the attorney-client relationship between Langley and
Stephen, Stephen engaged in numerous real estate business deals in which
Langley acted as counsel for Stephen and a variety of real estate entities owned or
controlled by Stephen.

17. At the time material to this action, the fee-paying aspect of the attorney-client
relationship between Stephen and Langley/Greenberg was such that
Langley/Greenberg performed significant amounts of legal work on Stephen’s
behalf, with the expectation that payment would be made out of the proceeds of
the transactions in which they were involved.

18. At the time material to this transaction, Stephen, through Acorn or otherwise, did
not write checks to Greenberg Traurig for full payment of legal services. With
respect to the transaction at issue in this litigation, Greenberg Traurig and Langley
anticipated receiving a substantial payment for their legal service directly out of
the closing proceeds when the loan closed.

Greenberg Traurig’s International Law Firm
19. Greenberg Traurig is an international law firm with 1800 lawyers and
governmental affairs professionals in approximately 34 locations covering
14 states (including the District of Columbia) and five foreign countries.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 4 of 23

20. Greenberg Traurig employs over 1800 lawyers and boasts expertise in over
60 distinct practice areas, including land development, real estate finance,
real estate litigation and real estate operations.

21. Greenberg Traurig employs hundreds of attorneys focused on the real estate
industry, and holds itself out as a “one-stop legal counsel for restructuring and
transferring ownership of real estate” through the collaboration of its real estate,
restructuring, tax, corporate, regulatory and bankruptcy practices.

22. Greenberg Traurig further holds itself out as “a global team of real estate
attorneys with more than four decades of experience delivering legal strategies
and services for property investment, development, management, operations and
finance.”

23. Greenberg Traurig P.A., a Florida professional association, owns and operates the
law firm’s seven (7) offices in the state of Florida, and serves as the General
Partner of Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

24. Greenberg Traurig, LLP, a New York limited liability partnership, is the umbrella
organization under which the firms twenty-three (23) other domestic offices are
operated.

25. Greenberg Traurig, LLP operates an office at One International Place in Boston
that employs over eighty (80) lawyers, including the former U.S. Attorney for the
District of Massachusetts, the former District Administrator of the Securities and
Exchange Commission, former Chief of Consumer Protection and Special
Counsel in the Massachusetts Attorney General's office, former Deputy Chief
Legal Counsel to the Governor of Massachusetts, and former Chief Legal Counsel
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 5 of 23

to the Speaker of the Massachusetts House. It employs four shareholder members
who specialize in real estate transactions.

Greenberg Traurig’s Conflict of Interest Avoidance Policy
26. Greenberg Traurig’s procedures for conflict check operates as follows: A
requesting attorney submits names of its client and other parties (i.e. the names of
the other parties involved in a new matter) to Greenberg Traurig’s National Intake
Department. The National Intake Department generates a report, which is sent to
the requesting attorney, and the requesting attorney reviews the report.

If two or more of the parties are represented by Greenberg Traurig, the requesting attorney
follows up with the Greenberg Traurig attorney who represents the other party to
determine if disclosure to and consultation with the new client is required.
27. In connection with the transaction that is the subject matter of this litigation, on or
about May or June of 2008, as part of Greenberg Traurig’s conflict check,
Langley and/or Greenberg Traurig submitted the following names to the National
Intake Department: Seacoast National Bank, Acorn at Willoughby, Acorn Real
Estate, and Stephen Vitiello. Langley did not submit the names of Camille
Vitiello or Franco Vitiello. The National Intake Department generated a report
indicating that Seacoast National Bank was an existing client. Langley did not
disclose the conflict to Camille Vitiello or Franco Vitiello.

28. Moreover, Langley did not consult with, or obtain the written consent of, Stephen
Vitiello, Camille Vitiello and Franco Vitiello relating to Greenberg Traurig’s
concurrent representation of Seacoast on the one hand and Camille Vitiello,
Franco Vitiello, and Stephen Vitiello on the other.

Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 6 of 23
! 7
Greenberg Traurig’s Relationship With Seacoast National Bank
29. At the times material to this action, Greenberg Traurig P.A. was engaged in an
attorney-client relationship with Seacoast National Bank (hereinafter “Seacoast”),
a federal chartered, publicly traded lending institution with dozens of locations
within the market area served by Greenberg Traurig’s Fort Landerdale, Miami,
Orlando, Palm Beach and Boca Raton locations.

30. Greenberg Traurig’s representation of Seacoast involved (at least in part) lender
representation on loan transactions and representation of the bank as the seller of
certain as yet unidentified real estate loans.

Greenberg Traurig’s Representation of Stephen & Camille
31. During June of 2006, Stephen purchased certain real estate located in Florida,
financed by means of a short term (2 year) purchase money loan from Seacoast
National Bank (hereinafter “Seacoast”).

32. As the Seacoast note approached maturity, Stephen engaged in negotiations,
through Langley, to refinance the loan with Seacoast.

33. At the onset of negotiations between Stephen and Seacoast (which was not the
only source of financing he approached), Seacoast indicated to both Stephen and
Langley that it would require additional collateral beyond the properties owned by
Acorn Willoughby and Acorn Real Estate.

34. Stephen instructed Langley repeatedly that the Debtors’ Property was not to be
offered as security for refinancing of the Seacoast loan.

Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 7 of 23
! 8
35. In addition to Stephen’s instructions to Langley, Camille also advised Langley
that she did not wish the Property to be used as collateral for the Seacoast
refinancing.

36. In response to their instructions, Langley repeatedly assured Stephen and Camille
that the Property would not be used as primary security, but would only be the
subject of what she referred to as a “springing guarantee.”

37. During the time Langley was negotiating with Seacoast on behalf of Stephen and
Camille, Seacoast was engaged in discussions with BMR Financial Group, Inc.
(hereinafter “BMR”) over the sale of certain of its real estate loans.
38. BMR Financial Group, Inc. is a private investment fund engaged, in whole or in
part, in the acquisition of troubled bank real estate loans.

39. In reliance on Langley’s representations and assurances, Camille assented to the
transaction as it was described to her by Langley, and Langley continued to
negotiate and draft documents to effect the transaction.

40. At the time that Langley was drafting and negotiating the documents to effect the
Seacoast refinancing, Stephen and his related entities owed Greenberg over
$67,000 in accrued and unpaid legal fees.

41. Langley and Stephen both knew and understood that Greenberg was to be paid its
accrued and unpaid attorneys fees out of the proceeds of the loan.

No Disclosure of Conflicts, No Consultation With Clients
42. During Langley’s representation of Stephen and Camille concerning the Seacoast
loan, neither Langley nor any agent of Greenberg advised Camille of any actual or
potential conflict of interest between Langley’s representation of Stephen in
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 8 of 23
! 9
closing the Seacoast transaction and her representation of Camille in documenting
a second mortgage securing the so-called “springing guarantee” on the real estate.
43. During Langley’s representation of Stephen and Camille in the negotiation and
documentation of the Seacoast loan, neither Langley nor any agent of Greenberg
advised Camille of any actual or potential conflict of interest between Langley’s
representation of Camille in documenting a second mortgage securing the socalled
“springing guarantee” and Greenberg Traurig’s representation of Seacoast
in the sale of certain of its real estate loans.

Langley and Greenberg Traurig’s Professional Negligence
44. During Langley’s representation of Stephen and Camille in the negotiation and
documentation of the Seacoast loan, Langley sought and obtained assistance from
Greenberg Traurig, LLP’s Boston office in the procurement of a title
commitment, a title examination, a title insurance policy upon the Property, and
an analysis of the title to the Debtor’s Property.

45. In response to Langley’s request, members of Greenberg Traurig LLP’s Boston
office caused a title examination to be performed, ordered a title commitment,
reviewed that title examination/report, reviewed the title commitment, reviewed
the requirements of the title commitment, and provided a title insurance
commitment to Seacoast, all prior to the closing of the Seacoast loan.
46. Specifically, among the many time entries contained in Greenberg Traurig’s bill
for legal services, the following time entries were made:
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 9 of 23
! 10
a. On June 19, 2008, at the request of Langley, Kedron Oberndorf
(“Oberndorf”) of the Greenberg’s Boston Office ordered a commitment
for title for the Debtor’s Property;

b. On June 20, 2008, Greenberg Traurig’s Boston Office continued to bill
Stephen for matters relating to the title commitment, and communicated
with Greenberg Traurig’s Florida Office;

c. On June 23, 2008, performed a “Title review and policy negotiation for
[the Debtor’s Property]” (Emphasis added) (for a period of five billable
hours at a time entry charge of $1,200.00);
d. On June 24, 2008, engaged in communications regarding document
recording affecting the Debtor’s Property.

47. The Citizen’s Mortgage was one of the documents within the possession of
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Greenberg Traurig P.A., and/or Langley, prior to the
closing the Seacoast Loan and the recording the Second Mortgage of the Debtor’s
Property.

48. If, in the course of procuring and reviewing a title examination, and binding a title
insurance policy on the Property, Langley and/or Greenberg Traurig, LLP did
examine the title documents, neither of them advised Camille of the existence of
Citizens’ first mortgage’s prohibition against recording subordinate liens and
encumbrances without its written consent.

Engagement of Richard Lynds to Act as Local Counsel for the
Issuance of a Due Authority and Opinion Letter
49. After Greenberg Traurig P.A. and/or Greenberg Traurig, LLP had reviewed the
title to the Debtor’s Property, and days before the scheduled closing set for July 1,
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 10 of 23

2008, Langley directed Boston attorney Richard Lynds to provide Seacoast with
his opinion letter regarding the due authority of Camille to execute the loan
documents on behalf of the Beacon Cutters Trust and the enforceability of the of
the documents executed by her.

50. Langley’s office provided Lynds with the relevant draft Seacoast loan documents
on the morning of July 1, 2008, but did not provide him with the Citizens Bank
Mortgage or any other title documents procured by them in the course of their
having conducted their commitment, examination, or title review.
51. On the morning of July 1, 2008, after Lynds reviewed the documents provided to
him from Langley, he communicated via email to both Langley and Langley’s
paralegal, Gail Case, to confirm that he was not being asked to review any matters
pertaining to title. That same morning, via e-mail, Langley’s office confirmed that
he was not providing an opinion with respect to any aspect of the title.
52. Lynds provided Langley with his draft opinion letter within twenty-four hours;
Langley forwarded the draft opinion to Seacoast’s counsel, later transmitted
Seacoast’s counsel comments back to Lynds, and in the process, never advised
Lynds of any issue or concern she might have had regarding the absence in
Lynds’ letter of any opinion regarding title, or of the specific disclaimers and
exclusions contained therein that would alert her to the limitations of the opinion
he gave.
53. Lynds provided his final opinion letter, approved by Seacoast counsel, at
approximately 7:30 AM the next morning, July 2, 2008. The final opinion,
consistent with the original draft, specifically alerted the reader that Lynds was
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 11 of 23
! 12
not reviewing the title to the Debtor’s Property, that he was not giving an opinion
relating to title, and that the Citizens Bank Mortgage was not one of the
documents that Lynds reviewed.

54. Langley transmitted the documents effectuating a Second Mortgage on the real
estate to Camille with instruction that she sign them and return them promptly.
Camille followed Langley’s instruction, signed the documents and transmitted
them to Greenberg on or about July 1, 2008.
Recording of the Second Mortgage on the Debtor’s Property
by Greenberg Traurig, LLP
55. The Seacoast loan transaction was closed on July 18, 2008.
56. Between the time of Lynd’s delivery of the Due Authority and Opinion Letter on
July 2, 2008 and the actual closing on July 18, 2008, Greenberg/Langley
continued to perform work relating to so-called title matters pertaining to the
Debtor’s Property.

57. Specifically, and without limitation, on July 16, 2008, Oberndorf billed the
following time entry: “Title matters regarding [the Debtor’s Property].
Subordination agreements and pro forma policy.” Admittedly, Greenberg was
handling subordination agreement relating to the Debtor’s Property, yet failed to
obtain a subordination or consent from Citizen’s bank.

58. On July 22, 2008, Greenberg Traurig recorded the Second Mortgage documents
on the title of Beacon Cutters Property at the Norfolk County Registry of Deeds,
thereby placing the Debtors in default of their existing Citizen’s Bank Mortgage.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 12 of 23
! 13
59. Oberndorf, had three more distinct time entries relating to the recording, followup
to the recording and review of the title policy affecting the Debtor’s Property
subsequent to the recording of the Second Mortgage on the Debtor’s Property
60. As payment for Langley’s services and costs related to the Seacoast Second
Mortgage on Beacon Cutters Property, on or about July 18, 2008, Camille paid
Greenberg Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty and 66/100 Dollars
($12,950.66).
61. As a part of the closing of the Seacoast transaction, Stephen paid Greenberg a
substantial sum out of the closing proceeds.

Post-closing Events Affecting Camille
62. Within weeks of the closing, Seacoast sold the newly-closed loan to BMR.
63. On or about July 18, 2008, with no knowledge of the implications inherent in the
recording of the Seacoast Second Mortgage, Camille and Citizens Bank engaged
in business negotiations over the existing First Mortgage on the Property.
64. As a result of Camille’s negotiations with Citizens, after July 22, 2008, Citizens
discovered that a Second Mortgage had been recorded in favor of Seacoast
National Bank.

65. Upon discovery of the Second Mortgage, Citizens declared the First Mortgage in
default, because the recording of the Second Mortgage violated Paragraph 17(c),
Page 8 of the Citizens Mortgage that had been reviewed by Greenberg/Langley
but not by Lynds (at the instruction of Langley)..
66. Citizens’ declaration of default upon the First Mortgage triggered default on the
Second Mortgage then owned by BMR.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 13 of 23
! 14
67. As a direct and proximate result of the Citizens and BMR defaults, the Debtors
were forced to file for personal bankruptcy protection.

68. As a direct and proximate result of the Citizen and BMR defaults and the
proceedings in this Court, the Debtors forfeited their interest in the real estate.
69. As a result, Dwyer caused a complaint to be filed in the instant action.
The Defendant’s Response to the Original Complaint

70. In response to the allegations in the Trustee’s Original Complaint Langley and
Greenberg Traurig P.A. averred in paragraph 27 of their Answer that “at no time
did Langley or any agent of Greenberg examine the title documents pertaining to
the Beacon Cutters Trust real estate to determine whether, or under what
circumstances, the Beacon Cutters Trust property could be further encumbered
beyond the existing Citizens mortgage.”

71. Langley and Greenberg Traurig P.A. further claimed that “in the expectation that
Citizens Bank mortgage might have a clause prohibiting subsequent
encumbrances and liens being placed on the Beacon Cutters Trust property,
Langley instructed that Camille and Franco Vitiello engage Massachusetts
counsel to research and opine on the propriety and ramifications of the so-called
‘springing guarantee’ on the Citizens mortgage and to provide an appropriate
legal opinion under Massachusetts law to Seacoast concerning the effect that the
recordation of the Seacoast mortgage would have on the Citizens mortgage.”
72. In their further effort to evade professional and fiduciary responsibility to their
client, Langley and Greenberg Traurig P.A. have sought to pass off the
responsibility of reviewing title matters on the Property to Richard C. Lynds as
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 14 of 23
! 15
the “Massachusetts counsel” responsible for reviewing the title issues, when in
fact they both knew or should have known that his engagement was strictly
limited to providing an opinion on the due authority of the Trustee, and had been
specifically instructed not to review any title matters.

73. The Answer provided by Langley and Greenberg in their Answer was repeated by
Langley in her Answers to interrogatories, in which she stated that she “advised
Camille to engage Massachusetts counsel to represent the Beacon Cutters Trust to
examine, research and render an opinion that would be in form and content
acceptable to Seacoast as to whether the recordation of the Seacoast mortgage
would result in a breach or violation of the Citizens mortgage and what the effect
of that ‘springing guarantee’ would be on property located in Massachusetts
according to Massachusetts law.

74. Contrary to their Answer and to Langley’s sworn testimony, the Plaintiff’s
discovery has revealed, in fact, that Mr. Lynds’ engagement was not for the
purpose claimed by the defendants, that Greenberg Traurig and Langley had in
fact engaged their own law firm’s Boston office to perform all necessary title
work in advancement of the closing of the transaction.

75. Even if Langley and Greenberg had in fact delegated the responsibility for title
issues to Boston counsel unaffiliated with them, Langley and Greenberg had a
fiduciary and professional responsibility to insure that the issue had been
addressed as she had instructed.

76. To the contrary, Langley’s only action with respect to insuring that the Boston
counsel’s opinion had been rendered was to pass along Lynds’ draft letter to
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 15 of 23
! 16
Seacoast counsel for comment, after having instructed him that he was not to
perform any review of title matters.
COUNT ONE – PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
(ALL DEFENDANTS)

77. The Plaintiff repeats each of the allegations contained in paragraphs one through
seventy-six as though specifically set forth herein.
78. Langley, Greenberg Traurig P.A. and Greenberg Traurig, LLP, jointly and
severally, owed a duty of care to Camille (individually and as Trustee) and
Franco.

79. Each of the defendants violated their duty of care when they undertook to
examine the title documents to the Property, failed to notice, or disregarded, the
Citizens Bank mortgage prohibition on recording of subsequent encumbrances
without consent, failed to advise Camille of the issue, and recorded the Seacoast
mortgage notwithstanding what they knew or should have known.
80. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of all of the defendants,
Citizens, and then BMR, exercised their rights of foreclosure on the Property.
81. As a direct and proximate result of the Citizens and BMR foreclosures, Camille
and Franco lost all of their equity in the Property.

82. The Debtors have suffered damages.
83. The Debtors’ cause of action constitutes an asset of the bankruptcy Estate.
COUNT TWO – BREACH OF CONTRACT

(LANGLEY AND GREENBERG TRAURIG P.A.)
84. The Plaintiff repeats each of the allegations contained in paragraphs one through
eighty-three as though specifically set forth herein.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 16 of 23
! 17

85. Langley and Greenberg Traurig P.A., jointly and severally, were engaged in an
express or implied contract for legal services with Camille, Franco and the
Beacon Cutters Trust.

86. Implied in their contractual relationship with Camille and Franco, Langley and
Greenberg Traurig P.A. were bound by the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

87. A material term of the contract was that they would represent Camille’s and
Franco’s interests in accordance with the Rules of Professional Responsibility that
govern the legal profession, including their duty of loyalty and a concomitant
obligation with respect to conflicts of interest.

88. Langley and Greenberg Traurig P.A. violated the rules of their profession when
they failed to disclose to Camille and Franco that there was a real and substantial
conflict of interest in their representation of Acorn Development Corporation,
Acorn at Willoughby LLC, Acorn Real Estate LLC on the one hand, and Beacon
Cutters Trust on the other, with respect to the protection and preservation of the
legal rights of Camille and Franco to the Property.

89. Langley and Greenberg Traurig P.A. violated the rules of their profession when
they failed to disclose to Camille and Franco that Greenberg Traurig P.A. was
engaged in a concurrent attorney-client relationship with Seacoast.

90. Langley and Greenberg Traurig P.A. further violated the rules of their profession
when, having failed to disclose a real and substantial conflict of interest, they
proceeded to represent the interests of Acorn Development Corporation, Acorn at
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 17 of 23
! 18 Willoughby LLC and Acorn Real Estate LLC to the detriment of Camille and
Franco.

91. Langley and Greenberg Traurig P.A. violated the rules of their profession when
they failed to secure from both Camille and Franco on the one hand, and Stephen
on the other, their respective consents to the representation after full disclosure
and consultation.

92. Langley and Greenberg further violated their implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing when they failed to disclose to Camille or Franco that Greenberg
Traurig P.A. had a concurrent attorney-client relationship with Seacoast with
respect to Seacoast’s sale of certain mortgage loan assets, and knew or should
have known that the loan to Stephen in which Langley was involved was intended
by Seacoast to be sold to BMR.

93. As a direct and proximate result of the breach by Langley and Greenberg Traurig
P.A., Citizens, and then BMR, executed their rights of foreclosure on the
Property.

94. As a direct and proximate result of the Citizens and BMR foreclosures, the
Debtors lost all of their equity in the Beacon Cutters Property.
95. The Debtors have suffered damages.
96. The Debtors’ cause of action constitutes an asset of the bankruptcy Estate.
COUNT THREE – BREACH OF CONTRACT
(GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP - BOSTON)
97. The Plaintiff repeats each of the allegations contained in paragraphs one through
ninety-six as though specifically set forth herein.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 18 of 23
! 19

98. When Greenberg Traurig, LLP (Boston) undertook to order a title commitment
and title examination, analyze title documents, and bind title insurance on the
Property at the instruction of Langley, it entered into an implied contract with
Camille that it would perform its legal services in accordance with the Rules of
Professional Responsibility and the standards of care for the title review, and the
examination of title, to wit, order, review and issuance of a title commitment, title
insurance commitment, and analysis of documents affecting title and protection of
their client’s interests.

99. Greenberg Traurig, LLP breached their duty of care to Camille when it either
failed to notice or ignored the Citizens Bank mortgage covenant prohibiting
further encumbrance upon the Property without its consent, and when it failed to
inform or advise Camille of the consequences of recording the Seacoast second
mortgage without obtaining such consent.

100. As a direct and proximate result of Greenberg Traurig, LLP’s negligence,
the Seacoast mortgage was recorded upon the Property title, Citizens discovered
the recording declared its first mortgage in default and instituted foreclosure
proceedings.

101. As a directly result of the Citizens foreclosure proceeding, BMR instituted
foreclosure proceedings.
102. As a direct and proximate result of the Citizens and BMR foreclosures, the
Debtors lost all of their equity in the Beacon Cutters Property.
103. The Debtors have suffered damages.
104. The Debtors’ cause of action constitutes an asset of the bankruptcy Estate.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 19 of 23
! 20
COUNT FOUR – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
(ALL DEFENDANTS)
105. The Plaintiff repeats each of the allegations contained in paragraphs one
through one hundred and four as though specifically set forth herein.
106. The conduct of each of the defendants, alone and in combination,
constituted an egregious abrogation of their respective fiduciary duties to the
Debtors.
107. As a result of defendants’ joint and several breach of fiduciary duty, the
Debtors have suffered damages.
108. The Debtors’ cause of action constitutes an asset of the bankruptcy Estate.
COUNT FOUR – UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE ACTS – M.G.L. c. 93A
(ALL DEFENDANTS)
109. The Trustee repeats each of the allegations contained in paragraphs one
through one hundred and nine as though specifically set forth herein.
110. Each of the Defendants is a “person” or “business” engaging in “trade or
commerce” within the meaning of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A.
111. The transaction described herein constitutes “trade or commerce” as
defined in Massachusetts General Laws c. 93A, and the actions alleged herein
occurred within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
112. The acts and conduct of the Defendants, described herein, constitute unfair
and deceptive acts and practices in violation of M.G.L. c. 93A and the regulations
promulgated thereunder.
113. The Defendants acted knowingly and willfully when they engaged in the
conduct described herein.
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 20 of 23
! 21
114. Langley, Greenberg Traurig P.A. and Greenberg Traurig, LLP knew, or
should have known, that the Seacoast Second Mortgage violated the nonencumbrance
covenant of the Citizens mortgage on the Property.
115. Langley and Greenberg knew or should have known that they had an
obligation to advise Camille of the consequences of recording the Seacoast
mortgage.
116. Langley and Greenberg knew, or should have known, that their
representation of Stephen and Camille concurrently, under the circumstances,
constituted a real and substantial conflict of interest.
117. Langley and Greenberg knew, or should have known, that Greenberg’s
representation of Stephen and Camille concurrently with their representation of
Seacoast in related transactions, under the circumstances, constituted a real and
substantial conflict of interest.
118. Langley and Greenberg knew, or should have known, that they had an
obligation to fully disclose the nature of the conflict in the concurrent
representation of Stephen/Camille and Seacoast, consult with both Stephen and
Camille, and obtain their informed consent to the representation.
119. Langley and Greenberg knew, or should have known, that a declaration of
default by Citizens Bank as a result of the recording of the Second Mortgage by
Seacoast would trigger a default in the Seacoast mortgage.
120. Langley’s and Greenberg’s disregard for the interests of Camille occurred
under circumstances where it knew that without the Property as collateral, the
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc
Supplement Amended Complaint Page 21 of 23
! 22
Seacoast loan would not close, and as a result, Greenberg and Langley would not
be paid the outstanding fees owed to them by Stephen.
121. Langley’s and Greenberg’s pursuit of the Seacoast closing to collect their
own fees, to the detriment of Camille, and in such clear conflict of interest
between her interests, Stephen’s interests, and Greenberg’s own interests,
constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct as that term is defined by G. L. c.
93A. §11 and controlling case law thereunder.
122. As a direct and proximate result of Langley and Greenberg’s conduct, the
Debtors have been damaged.
WHEREFORE, the Trustee requests that this Court grant the following relief:
1. That this Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on all counts of this
Complaint;
2. That this Court award treble, but not less than double damages to the
Plaintiff, as well as payment of attorney’s fees, costs and expenses to
Plaintiff; and
3. That this Court order such further relief as justice may require.
Respectfully submitted,
Kathleen P. Dwyer, Trustee
By her Special Counsel
/s/ Peter B. Morin
______________________________
Michael W. Ford, BBO# 644807
Peter B. Morin, BBO#355155
Ford Law P.C.
1216 Bennington Street
East Boston, MA 02128
Tel/fax 617-328-3400
mford@fordlawpc.com
Case 10-01179 Doc 25-1 Filed 05/06/11 Entered 05/06/11 15:29:42 Desc

SEC searches for "radical bunny greenberg"

2011-04-28T08:13:00.000-07:00

Washington, District Of Columbia, United States
U.s. Securities & Exchange Commission (162.138.1.3) [Label IP Address]
www.investigativeblogger.com/2010/05/greenberg-traurig-ponzi-investor-suit.html
www.investigativeblogger.com/2010/05/greenberg-traurig-ponzi-investor-suit.html
www.google.com/search?sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=active&source=hp&q=radical bunny greenberg

Greenberg Traurig, involved in 13 Trillion Dollar Patent Theft over Iviewit Technology

2011-01-23T10:00:00.000-08:00

Greenberg Traurig Served Securities Fraud Suit

Law360, New York (August 3, 2006) -- Several former UCAP Inc. investors have filed a securities suit against Greenberg Traurig, accusing the firm of “pump and dump” stock schemes.

The lawsuit alleges that during the two-month period between January 2, 2003 and February 28, 2003, Greenberg Traurig assisted four executives who ran the company in the issuance of over..."

http://www.law360.com/securities/articles/8093/greenberg-traurig-served-secu

Greenberg Traurig has been skating outside the law for far to long.

more on the iViewit Technologies Stolen patent
www.DeniedPatent.com

Mayor: Jackson Health System report is deeply troublesome

2010-11-07T06:25:00.000-08:00

"Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Alvarez has sent a stern letter to Jackson Health System saying he was ``deeply troubled'' by the inspector general's blistering report on Jackson's international marketing program and wanting to know what Jackson was doing to address the problem.

Meanwhile, two county commissioners are pushing Jackson to terminate immediately its agreement with Foundation Health Services, the company that runs the marketing program at a cost of $7 million a year. The resolution by Natacha Seijas, supported by Joe Martinez, seeks also for Jackson to recoup any money spent for ``any unapproved or improper expenditures.''

The marketing program -- and a move by Jackson to set up a nonprofit entity to run one of its clinics -- are expected to make for intense discussions Thursday at the county commission meeting.

The report issued last week by Miami-Dade Inspector General Christopher Mazzella decried FHS for ``wasteful'' spending, including $7,000 for flowers and birthday cakes, and $13,000 for local limo rides. The report, billed as ``first in a series,'' chastised Jackson's governing board, the Public Health Trust, for not watching FHS more carefully.

It appears that Jackson may be moving to make major changes quickly.

In a statement issued Tuesday morning, FHS Chief Executive Rolando Rodriguez defended his running the program, apologized for ``poor decisions'' by previous managers and then said, ``We are pleased to help the hospital move this back under its own management.''

By mid-day Tuesday, Jackson had not issued a response to the mayor's letter, sent on Friday, or Rodriguez' statement, but last week it responded to the OIG report by saying it was exploring alternatives to the international marketing, including ``identifying new, full-time leadership'' and perhaps forming a marketing partnership with the University of Miami.

In the letter to Jackson Chief Executive Eneida Roldan and Trust Chairman John Copeland, the mayor wrote, ``While I clearly understand that many of these acts of mismanagement occurred under a previous PHT administration, I have seen no indication that this culture and business practice has changed at FHS today. On the contrary, FHS appears to justify its wasteful or inappropriate spending by simply differentiating between the accounting of public and private dollars. . . .

``It is ludicrous to suggest that FHS should not be held to the standard of a public agency,'' the mayor wrote in the Friday letter. ``It was created for the sole purpose of assisting the PHT.''

Alvarez noted the OIG report revealed that FHS was sitting on a cash reserve of $2.2 million. ``I recommend that any future funding to FHS be provided only on a reimbursement basis, requiring that expenses be documented and tied to patient revenue at Jackson.''

The commission has already frozen $2.7 million in international marketing money, and Seijas now is pushing to stop all funding to FHS, which is budgeted at $7.2 million for fiscal 2011, which started Oct. 1.

In his statement Tuesday, Rodriguez, who is also chief executive of Jackson Memorial Foundation, said the foundation ``was asked by the PHT to grow its international business, which we have done with incredible success. . . . We are proud of our employees and their generation of more than $50 million, after all expenses, for Jackson Memorial Hospital.

``We have responded in detail to all the concerns raised. We do apologize for those instances where previous management made poor decisions in purchasing and other expenditures. Whether public or private funds, our goal was to manage our efforts with care and professionalism. We took swift action in response to these obvious errors.

``Our effort had one important difference -- the foundation did this at no profit to itself. . . . Our only mission is to help Jackson, and that is what we are always going to do.''

Meanwhile, Jackson is racing to make a change in its primary care clinics that is budgeted to add $6 million to the bottom line in fiscal 2011. The issue, put on Thursday's commission agenda by Commissioner Barbara Jordan, would convert a Jackson clinic, the North Dade Health Center, into a federally qualified health center, operated by an independent board of directors.

Federal law requires that FQHC clinics have local boards, with half the members being patients at the clinic.

The move would allow Jackson to be reimbursed by Medicaid about $143 per basic patient visit, according to Jackson research -- far above the $50 that the Jackson clinic gets for a Medicaid patient now.

Several other government entities around the country, including the North Broward Hospital District, have set up FQHC's, but the application process is long and complex.

Jackson officials have told county leaders they need commission approval at this week's meeting to have any chance for getting the new classification for calendar year 2011. "

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/02/1904171/mayor-jackson-marketing-report.html#storylink=fbuser#ixzz14fOt6sDo

Cesar L. Alvarez, Esq. - Executive Chairman of Greenberg Traurig
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=38925837299&topic=14771&post=61659

What is the REAL Story on Michael Shaw of Greenberg Traurig ?

2010-10-21T14:14:00.000-07:00

So what is the Real Michael Shaw of Greenberg Traurig Story?

Did Michael Shaw of Greenberg Traurig take this deal to hide way more money? Did Michael Shaw of Greenberg Traurig threaten to Expose Greenberg Traurig on their part in iViewit Stolen Patent?

Here is the Story

"Ex-Greenberg Traurig Associate Pleads Guilty in $500K Fraud Against His Firm

Michael Shaw pleaded guilty today to stealing nearly $500,000 from Greenberg Traurig when he worked there as an associate.

"For almost six years, Shaw regularly performed work for clients, submitted fraudulent invoices to the firm's accounting department, received checks, endorsed the checks over to himself, and deposited the funds into his personal checking account," read the statement from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia printed in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "During this period, he also continued to receive his regular law firm salary as well."

Starting in 2003, Shaw used either the name of a real investigator or a fake identity to bill Greenberg Traurig about $500,000. The firm discovered this misconduct in June 2009 and fired Shaw, who then repaid the firm $524,947.

Shaw is scheduled to be sentenced in early January, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. While he faces up to 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines, the plea agreement (PDF provided by The Am Law Daily) states that the government has agreed to sentence him at the low end of the guideline range

In March, Shaw, backed by State Bar of Georgia, filed a petition to the Georgia Supreme Court requesting six to 12 months of retroactive suspension. The justices rejected the proposed sanction as too light.

In June, the court rejected a proposed two- to four-year suspension for Shaw for the same reason. At that time, Paula Frederick, general counsel for the State Bar of Georgia, said that it would agree only to disbarment for Shaw. "

Got a Tip on Michael Shaw or on
Greenberg Traurig Corrupt Law Firm?

Why would ANY Court take this serious and Ignore the 13 Trillion Dollar RICO Lawsuit and the SEC Complaint against Greenberg Traurig over the Iviewit Stolen Patent.

Links on "Greenberg Traurig " iViewit"

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?tag=greenberg-traurig

http://www.greenbergtraurigsucks.com/2010/05/greenberg-traurig-ponzi-investor-suit.html

eMail me your Greenberg Traurig Corruption Tip
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Greenberg Traurig Partner Named ABA Committee Co-Chair - Robert M. Goldich. Greenberg Traurig is Corrupt and these Conflicts of Interest only Hurt not Help..

2010-08-17T11:20:00.000-07:00

"Robert M. Goldich, a shareholder in Greenberg Traurig’s Philadelphia office, has been appointed to a two-year term as employer co-chair of the Employment Rights and Responsibilities Committee (ERR) of the American Bar Association’s Section of Labor & Employment Law.

The employment rights committee addresses developments in the law governing the rights and responsibilities of individuals in the workplace and the resolution of disputes between workers and employers. Goldich has served as program chair and administrative chair of the ERR Committee, and also co-chair of its Trial Advocacy Subcommittee and ERISA Litigation Subcommittee.

Goldich is a member of Greenberg Traurig’s labor and employment practice in Philadelphia. He is an elected Fellow of the College of Labor and Employment Lawyers and is listed in The Best Lawyers in America.

Greenberg Traurig’s Global Labor and Employment Practice consists of over 100 lawyers in the United States and abroad who provide practical workplace strategies, counseling, technical assistance, and litigation services to clients in a wide range of industries. "

Source
http://www.jdjournal.com/2010/08/16/greenberg-traurig-partners-named-aba-committee-co-chair/

Robert M. Goldich

Greenberg Traurig connected to the Employment Rights and Responsibilities Committee (ERR) of the American Bar Association’s Section of Labor & Employment Law is flat out wrong. Greenberg Traurig is corrupt and these kinds of Greenberg Traurig conflicts of interest are what enables Greenberg Traurig to cover up Massive Shareholder Fraud such as the Iviewit Technology theft that Greenberg Traurig wwas without a doubt involved in.. and wel lwho will asnser complaints on corrupt attorneys when they have these kinds of conflict of interest connections...?

Vault.com Votes Greenberg Traurig top regional law firm in Miami - Talk About Full of Shit, Flat Out Lies.

2010-08-13T15:24:00.000-07:00

Who the Hell is Vault.com ? Whoever they are .. THEY are Full of Shit..

Vault.com Votes Greenberg Traurig top regional law firm in Miami

http://www.atlantagaattorneys.com/2010/08/vault-com-ranks-greenberg-traurig-top-regional-law-firm-in-miami/

Vault.com is Flat Out Lying. Read Folks, Look Deep the Facts are the Facts Greenberg Traurig Law Firm is Corrupt. Vault.com is in bed with other bad guys like Ropes and Gray ... even though the Galleon Crimes are .. well Vault.com just Forgets to Mention the TRUTH...

So with Vault.com Lies on Greenberg Traurig there Fails to be any mention of Greenberg Traurig and their direct connection to a 900 Million Dollar Ponzi Suit? Hmmmm..

And what about Greenberg Traurig involved the iViewit Stolen Technologies ... Does Vault.com know about that One?

Wasn't the Movie "the Firm" about Greenberg Traurig? Yet Vault.com tries to convince you that Greenberg Traurig is the "Top Regional Law Firm" - what region is that.. ??? HELL..

Vault.com Sucks and is Misleading the Public.. Dig Deep Folks .. I am not asking you to believe a word I say about Greenberg Traurig ~ I am Simply Saying Think for Yourself, Read... Look Deep and Find your Own Facts..

Vault.com You are a Disgrace.... and the Number One Fan, In My Opinion.. of Attorney Corruption and Judicial Hell Holes...

Posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Why Is Greenberg Traurig Law Firm interested in this Post Today?

2010-06-21T14:36:00.001-07:00

http://www.industrywhistleblower.com/2010/01/rene-p-eichenberger-matthew-shaw.html

How is Greenberg Traurig Connected To Alpine Partners, Crossbow Ventures, Matthew Shaw, René P. Eichenberger?

West Palm Beach, Florida, Greenberg Traurig interested in the Above Link to and Greenberg Traurig is Interested in WACHOVIA PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM - so what is Going on over At Greenberg Traurig in Palm Beach Florida ?

Is Greenberg Traurig getting sweaty palms in fear of the pending Trillion Dollar Iviewit Technologies Lawsuit coming there way?

I mean how long can Greenberg Traurig continue to hide, cover up, pay off the Florida State Bar, pay off Florida Supreme Court judges and stay in bed with Proskauer Rose to hide a Trillions in Liability from Shareholders and Insurance Carriers in regard to the iViewit Stolen Technologies...

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.DeniedPatent.com and
www.Iviewit.TV

posted here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Eliot Bernstein on Disbar the Florida Bar Radio about the Corruption and Coverups Among Florida and New York Attorneys.

2010-06-19T09:37:00.000-07:00

""Disbar the Florida Bar Radio Host Les Winston interviews Iviewit Tech Inventor Eliot Bernstein regarding illegal activities at the Florida Supreme Court, Florida Bar & Judge Jorge Labarga.

LISTEN TO INTERVIEW @

http://disbarthefloridabar.com/?page_id=96

or

http://www.iviewit.tv/DisbarFloridaBar23.mp3

World-renowned Inventor of Digital Video & Imaging Mathematical Scaling Formulas, Eliot Bernstein discusses with radio talk show host Les Winston of Disbar the Florida Bar his Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, naming the Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court & Labarga as Defendants.

The suit marked “legally” related by Judge Shira Scheindlin to a NY Whistleblower suit filed by a Supreme Court of NY Staff Attorney, Christine C. Anderson, Esq. Bernstein’s Amended Complaint @

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

Anderson alleges the NY Attorney Disciplinary Dept, responsible for the oversight of WallStreet lawyers, has been whitewashing and cleaning disciplinary complaints against attorneys, including US Attorney’s, DA’s & ADA’s. Anderson named a “Cleaner” from the Ethics Dept of the NY Supreme Court, Naomi Goldstein, supervisor at the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee.

No wonder WallStreet melted down & attorney regulators go unpunished for failures after causing massive damage to the American People, only to then leave government positions for cushy law firm partnerships. Anderson claimed staff attorney, Nicole Corrado Esq., on her way to testify at deposition supporting Anderson’s suit was threatened & intimated by a Sr. Court Official regarding giving testimony, creating Federal Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering & more by Court Officials.

Bernstein suing the FL & NY Supreme Courts, State Bars & Disciplinary Agencies, claims conflicted members of the courts, partners from Proskauer Rose LLP law firm, the main conspirator in Bernstein’s case along with law firm Foley & Lardner, illegally handled complaints against partners while holding official title with the courts & disciplinary agencies.

In NY, Bernstein’s allegations led to unanimous consent of 5 justice of the NY Supreme Court to have former NY State Bar Association President, Steven Krane, a Proskauer partner, ordered for investigation for conflicts & the appearance of impropriety.

Proskauer’s Kenneth Rubenstein, the sole (soulless) patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC, ordered for investigation along with attorney Raymond Joao, who claims to have put 90+ patents into his own name.

Bernstein claims patents filed by Joao were during & after the time Iviewit retained Joao to patent inventions for Bernstein, Joao patented them for himself instead. After termination as Iviewit counsel, Joao worked for infamous convicted felon Marc S. Dreier, sentenced July 13, 2009, to 20 years in prison.

Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the First Dept whom Anderson alleges to be the ringleader at the First Dept, ordered for Special Inquiry.

Cahill’s investigation relates to Krane’s conflicts & Cahill’s role in aiding and abetting the RICO Criminal Enterprise, which Bernstein claims is composed mainly of corrupt mob type law firms. Anderson under oath in Scheindlin’s US Fed Court stated “Cleaner” Goldstein was cleaning complaints against “favored law firms and lawyers”.

NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo fingered by Anderson & Bernstein for illegal representation of the accused NY State Officials in violation of his public office duties. Cuomo represents the State Officials both professionally & personally on the broke NY State taxpayers’ dime and Bernstein alleges the NY Attorney General is guilty of Felony Title 18 Obstruction of Justice.

Obstruction caused by Cuomo’s conflicting his offices with scienter from investigating the accused State Defendants they represent while simultaneously failing to call in a non-conflicted investigator to investigate the Defendants on behalf of the People of NY.

Cuomo is duty bound by Public Officer Law 17(2)(b), which dictates the Attorney General not represent State Defendants when conflict with their offices exist. Yet Cuomo not only represents the State Defendants when conflict exists in both Bernstein and Anderson’s lawsuit but has failed to call in any outside investigator to investigate the State Defendants, his clients, creating a block to prosecution & obstructing justice. Cuomo, Eliot Spitzer & the NY Attorney General’s office are Defendants in Bernstein’s suit.

The fact they are Defendants makes the continued representation of the State Defendants by the Attorney General’s office bizarre and further illegal.

Bernstein filed criminal complaints with the Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine, the US Attorney General Eric Holder & others regarding the criminal activities of both the NY and FL Officials.

Bernstein is the inventor of digital imaging & video technologies that revolutionized the Internet, Television & Digital Imaging, the technologies valued over a Trillion Dollars over the 20 yr patent life. Bernstein’s patents are currently on Suspension with the US Patent & Trademark Office by the Commissioner of Patents while the Office of Enrollment & Discipline (OED) Director at the US Patent Office, the Federal Patent Bar, investigates Bernstein’s attorneys for crimes including Fraud Upon the US Patent & Trademark Office.

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/USPTO%20Suspension%20Notices.pdf

Bernstein claims Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi claimed to be working with Harry I. Moatz, Director of the OED investigating allegations of crimes against the US & more, Bernstein claims Moatz confirmed collaboration with the FBI.

Bernstein calls for the end of attorney self regulation & self discipline by their peers, which has obviously failed, in favor of charging attorneys with criminal acts to criminal prosecutors, warning that victims of attorneys, judges and prosecutors who file with attorney run state attorney regulators are doing themselves a disfavor.

Bernstein claims the attorneys gain advantage through using the state disciplinary agencies, defending themselves in conflict and gaining confidential information against them, while feathering their caps with conflicted decisions on Supreme Court letterhead. Bernstein along with Anderson, testified before the NY Senate Judiciary Committee in NY @

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HR8OX8uuAbw&feature=player_embedded

&

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQLll5hmjs&feature=player_embedded

Chaired by Hon. Senator John Sampson, the hearings to investigate allegations of corruption in the NY Supreme Court Appellate Divisions. Hearings remain ongoing & claims made by NY Senators attending to begin a Task Force to investigate victims’ claims of legal process abuse.

According to Bernstein, one look only at the recent plethora of criminal activity in the stock market & Ponzi schemes to see that all of these schemes are run by law firms.

Bernstein claims the Ponzis are illegal money laundering operations for monies illegally obtained by the law firms Criminal RICO Enterprise activities. Bernstein points to recent schemes such as Bernard Madoff, former “Sir” Allen Stanford, Marc S. Dreier & Greenberg Traurig’s involvement directly in a Ponzi, as evidence that lawyers are behind the schemes & directly involved in intentionally creating subterfuge of the regulatory agencies that could have prevented these schemes.

Greenberg, recall was central to Abramoff’s fraud and linked to the Stanford Regulatory Failures.

Other Defendants, reported to the SEC for alleged Shareholder Frauds relating to the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST include Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL), Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Silicon Graphics, Inc. (delisted NYSE: SGI) & successor Silicon Graphics International (NASDAQ: SGI), Sony Corporation (NYSE/ADR: SNE) , Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT), Ernst & Young Global Limited @

http://www.free-press-release.com/news-eliot-bernstein-of-iviewit-technologies-files-sec-fbi-complaint-with-mary-schapiro-others-against-warner-bros-aol-inc-time-warner-intel-sgi-1268580941.html

and

http://www.iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=274

and

http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206 FINAL SEC FBI and more COMPLAINT Against Warner Bros Time Warner AOL

Information regarding these Ponzi schemes and the relation to the Iviewit crimes @

· Information regarding Greenberg Traurig’s involvement in a recent Ponzi, “The American Lawyer is reporting today, May 13, 2010, that the law firm of Greenberg Traurig has been sued for its willful participation in and facilitation of what it knew to be an illegal Ponzi scheme” @ http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=313 Greenberg represents in conflict the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Defendants in Bernstein’s Trillion Dollar RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit, as Greenberg was retained patent counsel by Bernstein & therefore acts wholly in violation of law representing Defendants in the matter.

· Information re the Bernard Madoff, Stanford & Dreier connections to Defendant Proskauer @

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=307 “Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom Further Implicated in the Allen Stanford Ponzi Scheme, Failures of SEC in Stanford Cited Further Supporting Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein’s Federal Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Claims”

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=256 “Proskauer (Porksour) Rose Law Firm Going Down in Allen Stanford Ponzi, next the trail of money may lead to Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein’s stolen Trillion Dollar Patents”

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=254 “Florida Bar Under Fire for Lack of Regulation in Robert Allen Stanford & Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, Kenneth Marvin defendant in Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Lawsuit”. After reading the article, one wonders if the Florida Bar reported this liability in the Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Federal Lawsuit to State Auditors?

The legally related cases to Anderson are @

Cases @ New York Second Circuit

1. 08-4873-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket - Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. - TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT

2. Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

3. Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

4. McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

Related Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY

5. 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT which other cases have been marked legally “related” to by Fed. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/anderson/20071028%20Anderson%20Original%20Filing.pdf

6. 07cv11196 Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.doc

7. 07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al. @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/Esposito/20081228%20Luisa%20Esposito%20Original%20Filing.pdf

8. 08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,

9. 08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al. @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/McKeown/20080307%20Kevin%20McKeown.pdf

10. 08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.,

11. 08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al. @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/carvel/Carvel%20Filing.pdf

12. 08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al. @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/Weisshaus/20080439%2008cv4053%20Gizella%20Weisshaus.pdf

13. 08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al. @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/McCormick/McCormick%2008cv4438%20SVM%20Cmplnt.pdf

14. 08 cv 6368 John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

15. 06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al ""

Iviewit Technologies Press Release.

Mark McCombs’s Overbilling Costs Greenberg Traurig $3.2 Million ? hmmm.. More to This One???

2010-06-14T20:56:00.000-07:00

"" Prestige has a price. Former Greenberg Traurig partner Mark McCombs found a sucker to foot the bill for him. As we reported earlier this month, he was the village attorney to Calumet Park, Illinois.

He was charged with bilking the village of over one million dollars, money he allegedly sought not for personal gain, but to impress his Chicago partners with his book of business.

Greenberg Traurig has reviewed his overbilling and discovered that it was actually in the multi-millions. The Southtown Star reports that the firm has reviewed McCombs’s billing of Calumet Park dating back to 2002, when he joined the firm, and will be returning $3.2 million to the village of Calumet Park. That takes a chunk out of Greenberg’s PPP this year.

Village records show McCombs billed the village for tens of thousands of dollars each month for work that apparently never was done.

He helped himself to property tax revenue that flowed into accounts of Calumet Park’s five tax increment financing districts.

After the jump, Greenberg Traurig managing shareholder Paul Fox says there is an upside to all this, and we have an UPDATE from the firm…

The firm fired McCombs when his potentially felonious activity came to light. From the Star (via the ABA Journal):

“The only silver lining in any of this is for us is that money is going back to people who need it,” said Paul Fox, managing shareholder of Greenberg Traurig.

“We’re helping a community and some school districts.

We thought that the appropriate thing to do was return all the fees.”
Will Greenberg be helping out other communities this year?

McCombs was the attorney to at least nine other villages, though a few precede his time at Greenberg. A firm spokesman previously told us that the firm is “reviewing all of Mr. McCombs’ billings and will make prompt reimbursements if we find that any overcharges occurred.”

UPDATE: A firm spokesman tells us, “Although we have not finalized our internal investigation, our initial review leads us to believe that this was limited to Calumet Park village, which was Mr. McCombs’ home town.”

Greenberg Traurig associates, if your bonuses bite this year, here’s one person you can blame.""

Source
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/03/mark-mccombs-overbilling-costs-greenberg-traurig-3-2-million/

My Guess is that Greenberg Traurig knew of Mark McCombs activities all along and that Greenberg Traurig was part of the whole cover up .. pay off.. activity in order to create illusions, by off judges, by off politicians, and quiet the Truth as Greenberg Traurig was part of in the iViewit Trillion Dollar Stolen Patent ( www.Iviewit.TV and www.DeniedPatent.com ) in My personal Opinion and well Cuz I can Read... I believe that Greenberg Traurig is a VERY Corrupt Law Firm ... one that would do just about anything to hide the TRUTH...

Julie Doolittle held a little-to-no work job paid by Greenberg Traurig, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying firm.

2010-06-14T17:43:00.000-07:00

"" As the AP reported Friday, the Justice Department has dropped its criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff co-conspirator John Doolittle. Let's see what more we can mine from the news reports. McClatchy Newspapers' John Doyle provides some of the best coverage.

Statute of Limitatations

A Justice Department corruption investigation that helped drive John Doolittle from office has now been closed without charges being filed, the former Sacramento, Calif.-area congressman said Friday.

"I'm thrilled," Doolittle said in an interview.
"They've dragged this thing out for six and a half years..."

Doolittle said he might never have learned of the development if he hadn't insisted that his attorney call the Justice Department shortly before the Memorial Day weekend.

Doolittle said that though some people warned him against "waking the sleeping dog," he was anxious to find out the status of his case so he could help his employment prospects.

The ACR Blog views this information as confirmation that Mr. Doolittle had signed a tolling agreement that waived the statute of limitations (SoL).

After all, the SoL on corruption-related crimes is five years. Mr. Doolittle says the investigation lasted six and a half years, meaning that the SoL should have expired a year and a half ago. Apparently, it didn't.

We infer that some milestone passed "shortly before the Memorial Day weekend"; specifically, we believe that the most recent tolling agreement expired at that time. It is highly unlikely May 2010 marked a SoL expiration related to corruption-related crimes committed in or about May 2005 (five years ago).

After all, that was well over a year after Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Susan Schmidt broke the Abramoff scandal wide open (February 2004).

Julie Doolittle

(L-R) John Doolittle, Kerrie Ring, Kevin Ring, Julie Doolittle

The Justice Department named Mr. Doolittle's wife, Julie, name as one of Mr. Abramoff's co-conspirators.

Doolittle added that he believes the phone call means no case will be brought against his wife, Julie, as well, though he said he's been frustrated in efforts to find out for sure.

Mr. Doolittle obviously has better information than we do regarding the legal status of his wife. Therefore, we'll take what Mr. Doolittle says at face value: It is unlikely that Mrs. Doolittle will be charged although we don't have any confirmation of that. Mrs. Doolittle held a little-to-no work job paid by Greenberg Traurig, Mr. Abramoff's former lobbying firm.

"No Evidence"

"[The Justice Department} had made up their minds that they were going to get me," Doolittle said Friday, "but there was no evidence against me."

We've already conceded that Mr. Doolittle has better information than we do about this case. But this statement is demonstrably false. There is evidence galore against Mr. Doolittle. The ACR Blog is not a court of law and does not claim to know whether the evidence would be sufficient to support a criminal conviction. Mr. Doolittle's statement is evidence to the ACR Blog that he is a dissembler, though. Let's look at just some of the evidence:

1. Mrs. Doolittle received tens of thousands of dollars in payments from Greenberg Traurig for little, if any, work.

Prosecutors said that these payments were "at the heart of the fraud" in the Abramoff scandal. Mr. Doolittle and his congressional staff (David Lopez) pressured Mr. Abramoff to "hire" Mrs. Doolittle.

2. While in Congress, Mr. Doolittle was very supportive of clients of Mr. Abramoff even when those clients were not anywhere near Mr. Doolittle's northern California district. For example, according to Team Abramoff lobbyist Todd Boulanger, Mr. Doolittle intervened on behalf of the Sac and Fox, an Iowa Indian tribe, to reopen the tribe's casino.

Mr. Doolittle also intervened in an effort to help another Abramoff client, the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts, gain federal recognition.

3. Mr. Doolittle also assisted Mr. Abramoff in supporting another of the lobbyist's clients, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). When it comes to the CNMI, the ACR Blog typically defers to its friend Wendy at Unheard No More!

This is no exception. Please follow the link to learn more about Mr. Doolittle's role in the CNMI. Pay particular attention at how Mr. Doolitte's staff tried to retaliate against a human rights advocate who was testifying to Congress about abuses in the CNMI.

Legacy

Mr. Doolittle is a rare breed.

Neither conservatives nor liberals admire him. This is primarily because the former Congressman has no guiding principles. Mr. Doolittle was an earmark aficionado. Mr. Doolittle's decision not to seek reelection in 2008 cleared the path for California's 4th district to elect conservative Tom McClintock to the seat.

Mr. McClintock is a true Tea Party style conservative who refuses to engage in the destructive practice of earmarking. Mr. Doolittle's ethical problems led to the unexpected result of truly ethical and conservative representation for CA-04. At least there was a good result to this mess. (Why couldn't TX-22 get a good conservative after Tom DeLay left?) ""

Source of Post and Lots of Links to more information
http://anticorruptionrepublican.blogspot.com/2010/06/john-doolittle-thrilled-that.html

So Greenberg Traurig paying for NO Work - Little Work?? Hmmm.. Looks - to Me - IN MY Opinion like Greenberg Traurig is partaking in Yet another Corruption Cover up, Pay Off Scandal, and Conspiracy to Protect and enRich the Not So Innocent...

More on the Crimes and Corruption of Greenberg Traurig at the Iviewit Technoligies site - www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV ..

Greenberg Traurig - MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs. Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose

2010-05-26T14:25:00.000-07:00

Greenberg Traurig - Corrupt Law Firm ... Proskauer Rose Corrupt Law Firm...

MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs - MPEG LA is Corrupt, it is my understand that MPEG LA Stole a Trillion Dollar Patent with the Aid of Corrupt Law Firms, Tech Companies, Patent Attorneys and Executives

"MPEG-LA hit by antitrust suit over video codecs

NEWSGerman software maker Nero has filed an antitrust complaint against MPEG-LA, the company that oversees licensing for the H.264 video codec favoured by Microsoft and Apple.

MPEG-LA (MPEG Licensing Authority) controls the licenses for the pools of patents needed to use the MPEG-2, MPEG-4 and AVC/H.264 video standards. As such, it collects royalties from the sale or distribution of almost every PC, DVD, DVD player, digital TV set, TV set-top box, still camera, video camera, iPhone and BlackBerry in the world.

Nero, best known for its CD burning software, alleges that MPEG-LA abuses its monopoly power in these technology markets. The company filed its antitrust complaint in California district court in Los Angeles on 14 May, seeking unspecified monetary damages and an injunction to halt the alleged anti-competitive actions.

"Absolute power has corrupted MPEG-LA absolutely," Nero maintained in its complaint. "Once MPEG-LA obtained monopoly power in the relevant technology markets, it used that power to wilfully maintain or extend its monopolies for years beyond their natural expiration... and administer its licences in an unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory manner that stifles competition and innovation, and harms consumers."

MPEG-LA charges licensees different amounts for the same MPEG-2 patent, collects administration fees and royalties multiple times for the same device, and does not communicate its policies adequately to certain licensees, according to Nero.

"By remaining silent on vital aspects of its licensing programs, MPEG-LA has created a system that favours some licensees, such as insiders (ie, licensors), and disfavours others, such as outsiders (ie, non-licensor licensees)," Nero's complaint read.

"As a result, outsiders such as Nero have great difficulty planning technology changes and embarking on programmes to research, develop and implement technological innovations — and are charged supracompetitive royalties on distributions as to which they never agreed to pay royalties — while other licensees, such as insiders, do not face such problems."

According to Nero's complaint, MPEG-LA only obtained monopoly power in the relevant audio and video codec markets after getting assurances in 1997 that the Department of Justice (DoJ) would not launch antitrust proceedings against it.

These assurances were conditional on patent pools not being used to stifle competition, Nero stated. It added that MPEG-LA suggested to the DoJ at the time that the pool for MPEG-2 contained no more than 53 essential patents.

MPEG-LA subsequently added around 800 patents it deemed to be essential to the MPEG-2 pool, so as to extend the duration of the codec's licence, Nero said. The company did the same thing with the MPEG-4 pool, which now includes more than 1,000 patents, and the AVC/H.264 pool, now with over 1,300 patents, according to the filing.

AVC/H.264 is the video codec of choice for Microsoft, which will support it natively in Internet Explorer 9, and for Apple, which is backing it as a superior alternative to Flash.

While Google also supports H.264 in Chrome, it recently open-sourced its own alternative, VP8, in a bid to provide a free alternative to the proprietary and paid-for H.264.

As part of its complaint, Nero said that MPEG-LA used its own patent counsel, Kenneth Rubenstein, as "a so-called 'independent' expert" to evaluate the essentiality of patents.

MPEG-LA had not responded at the time of writing to a request on Tuesday for comment on Nero's allegations. The next stage in the case will be for MPEG-LA to answer Nero's complaint. ""

http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/regulation/2010/05/25/mpeg-la-hit-by-antitrust-suit-over-video-codecs-40089042/

Lets See How German Tech Companies Handle the Corrupt, UnEthical and Illegal Behavior of MPEG LA....

Ok so a Decade after Kenneth Rubenstein, Corrupt MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose Law Firm Patent Attorney, helped MPEG LA to steal the Holy Grail of Video / Technology inventions in which we all use every day and have for years upon years, well now this same Corrupt Patent Attorney is involved in more patent theft and illegal patent pool... why is Proskauer Rose standing with Kenneth Rubenstein?

I mean Christopher Wheeler was involved in this stolen patent and he was pushed out.. Kenneth Rubenstein was not even at Proskauer Rose when he first started his patent theft FOR MPEG LA to illegally pool the iviewit technologies in patent pools to hide their existence.. then Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose hired Kenneth Rubenstein after he already lied to the Iviewit Company and said that he was with Proskauer Rose.. so Corrupt Law Firm - Proskauer Rose must be getting billions from MPEG LA dirty dealings or they would not have harbored a CRIMINAL for so long.. also see.. Proskauer ROSE was the reason for the Fall of Enron with this patent .. this technology theft.. and no accountable?

Well that day has come... Unless of Course Corrupt Proskauer Rose also owns judges, ethics committees, supreme courts, and patent officials in Germany as Well as the US?

I will discuss a WHOLE lot more about MPEG LA, Kenneth Rubenstein and Proskauer ROSE and the Horrible Injustice, Flat Out Fraud, Shareholder Deception, and more that surrounds MPEG LA - Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein Corrupt Patent Attorney STEALING a Trillion Dollar Technology and Illegally Pooling this Technology in MPEG patent Pools.. all orchestrated by ONE very Corrupt Patent attorney Kenneth Rubenstein..

PS don't forget.. MPEG and APPLE are seeming quite cozy and Bruce Sewell knew about Iviewit .. while at Intel and when informed went to APPLE.. more on that later..

For Now Scour These Sites for more information...

www.Iviewit.TV

www.DeniedPatent.com

www.ProskauerSucks.com

www.KennethRubenstein.com

www.BruceSewell.com

www.JeffreyBewkes.com

www.CEOpaulOtellini.com

posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

more on the MPEG LA stealing and pooling patents .. at http://www.iviewit.tv/ and at www.DeniedPatent.com

"Notice to my federal judge of Greenberg Traurig Ponzi scheme" Greenberg Traurig Corruption

2010-05-18T13:39:00.000-07:00

" Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:36 AM
Subject: Notice to my federal judge of Greenberg Traurig Ponzi scheme lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
JUDGE DUDLEY H. BOWEN, JR.
JOHN B. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff,

v.

Case No. 6:10-cv-442
THE FLORIDA BAR,
FLORIDA SUPREME COURT,
and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendants.

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF A FEDERAL COURT
FILING COMES NOW plaintiff, John B. Thompson (Thompson) and moves this court to take judicial notice of the following:

The American Lawyer is reporting today, May 13, 2010, that the law firm of Greenberg Traurig has been sued for its willful participation in and facilitation of what it knew to be an illegal Ponzi scheme.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the American Lawyer article.

Note that by going on the Internet to the following link one can access the electronic version of
this article, embedded in which is a link to the actual Ponzi scheme complaint filed against Greenberg Traurig in federal court:

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202458105019&src=EMC-Email&et=...
al&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100513&kw=Ponzi%20Investor%20Suit%20Targets%20Greenberg%20Traurig%2C%20Quarles%20%26%20 Brady .

It can be accessed by the PACER system as well, of course, Case 2:10-cv-01025-JWS.
Plaintiff asks this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of the formal filing of this complaint because the allegations therein corroborate the shocking culture of corruption that permeates the Greenberg Traurig law firm, which was retained by the defendant Florida Bar because
of, not in spite of, this firm-wide, top-to-bottom corruption.

The Florida Bar wanted a law firm that would be willing to do and say anything to protect its corrupted lawyer disciplinary system which the American Bar Association itself says is fatally flawed and highly susceptible to Corruption.

What a surprise (not) that Greenberg Traurig has insinuated itself onto the Board of Governors of the Arizona State Bar in order that that lawyer disciplinary entity might look the other way.

No lawyer in the Office of the Florida Attorney General, which should be representing The Florida Bar as the "official arm" of the Florida Supreme Court would be willing to do and say what The Bar's private sector law firm, Greenberg Traurig, has done to protect The Florida Bar from Thompson's rightful claims and the claims of others.

The Bar has Greenberg on permanent retainer to handle such claims, when it should be using the Office of the Attorney General of Florida.

If Greenberg Traurig enters a formal appearance on behalf of The Bar in this case, then plaintiff will file a motion to disqualify that firm, as certain lawyers therein will be indispensable fact witnesses herein.

That is one reason for this request of judicial notice.

For example, it is not a coincidence that Greenberg Traurig advised The Bar, as asserted in the First Amended Complaint, to waive all insurance coverage as to Thompson. It was so that Greenberg Traurig, without any insurance industry oversight, would be free to violate state and federal laws to harm Thompson.

It was The Bar's carrier that shut down The Bar's earlier illegal acts against Thompson.

The Bar had in Greenberg Traurig, as the federal lawsuit filed in Arizona District Court indicates, a corrupted law firm, ready, willing, and able to deprive Thompson of his constitutional rights just as it is alleged to have ripped off investors in Arizona.

The four million dollars paid out of Florida Bar members dues over the last several years bought a lot of lawyerly corruption-unavaialbe to it if the Florida Attorney General had been properly representing The Bar. Thompson can prove that The Bar certainly got its money's worth of corruption from Greenberg.

I hereby certify that a copy of this motion has been provided this 13th day of May, 2010, to all of the parties directly, as plaintiff is waiting to hear whether they will waive formal service of the summons and first amended complaint herein.

JOHN B. THOMPSON
Plaintiff pro se
5721 Riviera Drive
Coral Gables, Florida

"An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor
does truth become error because nobody will see it." -- Mahatma Gandhi

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202458105019&src=EMC-Email&et=editorial&bu=Law.com&pt=LAWCOM%20Newswire&cn=NW_20100513&kw=Ponzi%20Investor%20Suit%20Targets%20Greenberg%20Traurig%2C%20Quarles%20%26%20Brady

I and others have ample information suggesting that this particular law firm has been swimming for quite sometime in a culture of corruption that makes your allegations in the aforementioned suit plausible. When you see and can prove a lawyer lying in open court, in federal court no less, it is at least probative of what concerns your clients.

This law firm, for example, by virtue of its improper and illegal relationship with The Florida Bar, has helped turn our state's lawyer disciplinary machinery into a means by which corrupt law firms and lawyers are protected and innocent lawyers who are whistle-blowers are targeted illegally.

The Florida Bar, as a result, looked the other way when it knew or should have known that Scott Rothstein, who authored a huge Ponzi scheme here, had insinuated himself as an operative in The Florida Bar's disciplinary machinery to buy protection from The Bar.

The Bar was even skimming some of these Ponzi scheme monies to fund certain of its pet projects. ""

Have a Greenberg Traurig Tip?
Email Me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Greenberg Traurig - Ponzi Investor Suit Targets Greenberg Traurig, Quarles & Brady

2010-05-13T11:44:00.001-07:00

Greenberg Traurig

"" The American Lawyer
By Susan Beck
May 12, 2010

This article first appeared on The Am Law Daily.

When the U.S. Supreme Court last year rejected the concept of aider and abettor liability in its Stoneridge decision, it was a huge win for law firms that might otherwise be sued by angry investors. But that doesn't mean that firms are completely insulated from lawsuits like these.

On Tuesday, for example, Greenberg Traurig and Quarles & Brady were named as defendants in an investor class action filed in federal district court in Arizona for allegedly aiding and abetting a Ponzi scheme run by a real estate loan company called Mortgages, Ltd. and a financing company called Radical Bunny. In an attempt to bypass Stoneridge, the defendants are accused of violating Arizona state securities laws. A copy of the complaint is here.

The case was brought on behalf of 2,000 investors who claim to have lost more than $900 million. The plaintiffs are represented by Richard Himelrick of Phoenix's Tiffany & Bosco and Andrew Friedman of Phoenix's Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint.

Mortgages Ltd. was an Arizona company that made loans to real-estate developers and then sold most of the loans to investors. Radical Bunny helped raise money for Mortgages Ltd. by illegally operating as an unlicensed securities dealer, the complaint alleges.

According to the complaint, Mortgages Ltd. adopted a Ponzi approach in which new investor money was used to cover operating expenses, investor interest, investor redemptions, and the lavish lifestyle of company CEO Scott Coles.

The company filed for bankruptcy in 2008, and investigations followed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Arizona regulators. Earlier this year the Arizona Corporation Commission issued a cease and desist order against Radical Bunny, and the SEC found that a Mortgages Ltd. affiliate had willfully violated securities law.

The law firms, according to the complaint, "played an integral role in facilitating the fraudulent scheme." The firms are accused of violating Arizona securities laws, negligent misrepresentation and nondisclosure, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

The plaintiffs have also sued auditors CBIZ Inc. and Mayer Hoffman McCann, and several former executives at Mortgages Ltd. and Radical Bunny.

Mortgages Ltd. hired Greenberg Traurig in April 2006, the complaint states, and over the next two years the firm, led by partner Robert Kant, prepared 11 private-offering memorandums for investors.

The complaint alleges that from at least December 2006, "Kant was fully aware that Mortgages Ltd. was being funded with proceeds collected from Radical Bunny’s illegal securities sales.

The illegality of this fundraising was so apparent to Kant that he told Coles and [Radical Bunny executive Tom] Hirsch (during a meeting with lawyers from the Quarles & Brady firm) that 'people go to jail' for such misconduct....

Kant’s concerns about the illegal securities sales were so great that he admonished the Radical Bunny managers in late 2006 to obtain securities counsel, so that their pictures would not wind up 'on the front page of the Arizona Republic.'"

The complaint further alleges that a Quarles partner "even questioned in a file note whether Mortgages Ltd.’s relationship with Radical Bunny had 'a Ponzi scheme feel' to it."

The Quarles lawyers later stated in SEC testimony that they told Radical Bunny’s managers to stop selling the securities and to contact the SEC and Arizona securities regulators to admit they had violated securities laws, according to the complaint.

But the client said he didn't want to talk to regulators and disclose past securities violations, the complaint alleges. The firm did not disassociate itself with the client, the complaint alleges, and continued to assist in new securities sales.

Quarles & Brady gave us this statement from Jon Pettibone, the managing partner of its Phoenix office: "During a portion of 2007, Quarles & Brady represented Radical Bunny, but we have not represented it since.

At no time have we represented Mortgages Ltd. Both federal and state enforcement authorities have thoroughly investigated the dealings between Mortgages Ltd. and Radical Bunny and brought enforcement actions against Radical Bunny and its principals. Quarles cooperated fully with both investigations.

No enforcement action has been brought against our firm or any of its lawyers and we do not expect any such action will be filed. Our conduct was at all times lawful and ethical....We will defend ourselves against any claim that we acted improperly in any way." The firm is represented by Robert Gooding Jr. from Howrey.

Greenberg Traurig likewise maintained it acted properly.

"These claims are without merit," the firm said in an email. "We believe our representation was appropriate in all respects. The firm is prepared to vigorously defend against these unfounded claims." The firm said that it expects it will be represented by Williams & Connolly. ""

Source of Post

http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202458107106&Ponzi_Investor_Suit_Targets_Greenberg_Traurig_Quarles__Brady&hbxlogin=1

Speaking of Investor Class Action - Intel Corp. , Warner Bros., Time Warner Inc., Sony, Lockheed Martin, AOL, IBM and more involved in the Stolen Iviewit Technologies Patent - you will be next - when investors find out how long these companies have KNOWN and failed to disclose a TRILLION dollar liability WELL I don't think these Smart, Savvy Investors will be to Happy.. and those Millions hand over fist the CEO's of the Company made - well they will lose it. .. as there are over a thousand documents of proof online of their guilt, and their Knowledge of the Iviewit Stolen Patent and they continue to this day to violate licensing agreements, and to make billions off of the Iviewit Technology..

Guys life Bruce Sewell, Jeffrey Bewkes, Paul Otellini, Kenneth Rubenstein, Christopher Wheeler and tons more... will soon face and Investor Class Action Lawsuit of their Own.. as the PROOF is Plentiful to anyone who Can READ !!!

Oh and don't forget to note that in the RICO complaint and lots of documentation... the CBIZ connection... see CBIZ bought Goldstein Lewin Company RIGHT? and they were directly involved in the Iviewit Stolen Patent. I thought it ridiculously risky for CBIZ to make this purchase, they were all over my blogs before and after the purchase...

Now I believe, from what I am seeing.. IN MY OPINION.. that CBIZ, Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C. and Steven L. Gerard knew exactly what they were getting and they bought Goldstein Lewin to protect them and to hide corruption and illegal activity.. they are all in Bed Together just as the RICO Complaint by Iviewit Technologies Owner - and One of the Iviewit Inventors Eliot Bernstein has documented so well in his RICO Complaint.

Just my thoughts.. as all this is adding up to
a VERY solid and Well Laid Wall Of Corruption.

http://www.ethicscomplaint.com/2010/01/goldstein-lewin-company-mayer-hoffman.html

http://www.federalricolawsuit.com/

http://www.whistleblowerreport.com/2010/03/eliot-bernstein-of-iviewit-technologies.html

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm
Iviewit Stolen Patent Crime Chart.

More on the Iviewit Techonologies Stolen Patent and Greenberg Traurig 's role in it go to www.DeniedPatent.com and www.iViewit.TV