John E. Collins is a Principal and founding member of Clark Street Development. John E. Collins is responsible for the daily operations, acquisition analysis and property management for the Company.
John E. Collins development experience includes structuring projects/partnerships utilizing strategic joint ventures, 1031 exchange requirements, Federal Empowerment Zone and tax increment financing, sophisticated tax strategy, as well as public/private partnerships.
In addition to forming Clark Street Development, John E. Collins is also a Partner of John E. Collins Interests, Ltd. which specializes in development, asset management, investment consulting and financing placement for commercial real estate properties. John E. Collins, the Company currently manages a portfolio of traditional retail centers, office and industrial buildings, over 2000 acres of developable land, an airport hangar and an operating limestone mine – mostly concentrated in the greater metropolitan Chicago area.
Prior to John E. Collins Interests, John E. Collins worked for LaSalle Bank NA in their Commercial Real Estate Departments where John E. Collins underwrote national and international real estate including office, industrial, retail, self-storage, and multi-family properties for REIT’s and private development firm.
John E. Collins is a graduate of Indiana University, majoring in Finance.
Source of John E. Collins information in John E. Collins post, regarding John E. Collins of Clark Street Development.
http://www.clarkstreet.com/our-company/our-team/john-e-collins/
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Friday, January 6, 2012
Eugene Volokh, Mayer Brown and Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC file a Motion for a New Trial in Obsidian V. Cox, Free Speech Case out of Portland Oregon.
"Motion for New Trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am
Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.
As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.
The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:
Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded that “in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).
And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.
Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);
Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));
First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).
All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.
And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.
Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.
But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).
And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.
The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).
Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.
But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others;
or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.
In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).
But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.
All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."
Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/
Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial
Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede
Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee.
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am
Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.
As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.
The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:
Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”
Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded that “in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).
And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.
Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);
Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));
First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);
Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).
All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.
And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.
Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.
But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).
And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.
The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).
Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”
Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.
But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others;
or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.
In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).
But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.
All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."
Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/
Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial
Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede
Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
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.
Proskauer Rose LLP - Billing Discrepancies - Missing Pages and ... More on Proskauer Rose involved in iViewit Technology Theft.
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.TV
For 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
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.
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.
Below Fromwww.Iviewit.TV
Of course I did not order the investigation, a bunch of judges did.
Originally posted by Crystal L. Cox Blogger at Link Below
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/steven-c-krane-esq-proskaur-rose.html
Proskauer Rose LLP, Robert J. Kafin - Securities Fraud - USPTO Fraud - Shareholder Fraud - Anti-Trust Violations - Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Sucks - Proskauer Rose Corruption
Proskauer Rose Law Firm - RICO Complaint Proskauer Rose
Patent & Copyright Misappropriations
•Co-Directs Frauds: USPTO; EPO; JPO;
Wachovia Securities Fraud;
Iviewit Shareholder Fraud;
•Contributory Antitrust Violations
•Co-Directs RICO Violations
•Tortuous Interference with Business Relationships
•Conflicts of Interest
For More Affiliations, Conflicts of Interest Click on Link Below.
Link to Source Of this Post
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/KAFIN.htm
Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Eye on Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose
Originally Posted ..
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-robert-j-kafin.html
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.TV
For 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
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 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.
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. "
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.
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:
Eliot Bernstein Site on the Iviewit Stolent Patent
Original Proskauer Rose - iViewit Post
More on Iviewit Story at
Proof of Proskauer Rose Corruption
Proskauer Rose Involved in iViewit Technology Theft
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm
Proskauer Rose Crime Chart
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/CRIME%20ORG%20CHARTS%201.htm
Proskauer Rose Crime Chart
Originally posted by Crystal L. Cox Blogger at Link Below
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/steven-c-krane-esq-proskaur-rose.html
Proskauer Rose LLP, Robert J. Kafin - Securities Fraud - USPTO Fraud - Shareholder Fraud - Anti-Trust Violations - Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Sucks - Proskauer Rose Corruption
Proskauer Rose Law Firm - RICO Complaint Proskauer Rose
Patent & Copyright Misappropriations
•Co-Directs Frauds: USPTO; EPO; JPO;
Wachovia Securities Fraud;
Iviewit Shareholder Fraud;
•Contributory Antitrust Violations
•Co-Directs RICO Violations
•Tortuous Interference with Business Relationships
•Conflicts of Interest
For More Affiliations, Conflicts of Interest Click on Link Below.
Link to Source Of this Post
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/rico/KAFIN.htm
Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Eye on Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Proskauer Rose
Originally Posted ..
http://www.massiveshareholderfraud.com/2011/07/proskauer-rose-llp-robert-j-kafin.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
Originally Posted at Link Below in an ongoing effort by Crystal Cox Blogger toexpose 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.
Warner Bros. Signed Non Disclosure Agreements with Iviewit, Warner Violated those Agreements. Warner Signed License and Service Agreements..
*Note Warner Bros et al. relevant mergers, acquisitions and breakups to these matters in the timeline below are in bold italics.
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
"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.
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.
· 1998-2001
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 @
Pages 1-5, 10, 61-62, 80, 108-109, 234
· November 02, 2000 ~ Letter to GS regarding Warner Bros. Technological Calls to Iviewit Investors by Warner Bros. employees, describing the efficacy of the Inventions and the results of the review by Warner Bros., including the anticipated uses by Warner Bros et al.
· January 11, 2001 ~ America Online and Time Warner Complete Merger to Create AOL Time Warner
· 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.
· February 15, 2001 EFFECTIVE DATE - Signed Warner Bros. License And Service Agreement @
August 15, 2001 Irell &; Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @
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.
· 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.
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.
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. ""
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
