Saturday, January 21, 2006

Response to why Data Compression News Blog article was taken down

The Data Compression News Blog which published the story was asked by Proskauer to take down this story, another journalist and his publishing company, from Portfolio Media, Inc. was threatened with litigation by Proskauer. The author of the story Sachin has requested that his comments and statements not be published but I have published my response to some of his questions regarding Proskauer's false claims. The answers below.

---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Sachin Re Proskauer demanding you take down the news story From: iviewit@iviewit.tvDate: Sat, January 21, 2006 10:05 amTo: "Sachin Garg" <>Cc: "" <>


First thank you and I am sorry that writing a news story has put you in the middle of Patentgate but the name should give some warning as to just how big of a story is unfolding and just how frightened the law firms are of public awareness of the story. The others copied were shareholders and friends. First, I have published only the actual news story from your site at my blog, I will not publish further without permission of yours but that was already a published article.

1. No court has decided in Proskauer's favor any of the allegations, as no court has heard the case or tried the criminal aspects of any of the petitions filed by Iviewit. The courts having denied the Iviewit petitions clearly serve as NO victory to either side. The bar complaints in Florida and New York were never prosecuted or heard by the bars and were dismissed on review, again clearly no victory. In fact, in Florida and New York, at the bars and disciplinary departments, Proskauer partners were found violating state Supreme Court bar positions and these allegations have been filed against the partners but have been refused to be heard by the courts. Again, clearly no legal victory for Proskauer, just a delay to a ticking bomb.

2. The only court case I am aware of is the Proskauer instigated billing case against Iviewit in Florida. It is now learned that the companies sued have stolen intellectual properties in them and were identically named to Iviewit entities, this was part of the original attempt to steal the inventions. Proskauer did all the corporation set up work and controlled the patent work, thereby the ones that are responsible for the corporate and patent scheme and artifices to defraud shareholders found in this case. The billing case was a fiasco for Proskauer from the start, in fact, until senior management at AOLTW/WB were doing due-dilligence for a twenty five million dollar investment in Iviewit, Iviewit was not even aware that it was in litigation with anyone. How might this be you ask, the answer is simple, Proskauer had sued companies that looked and smelled like Iviewit companies, but they were duplicate companies whereby stolen IP was being funnelled out the door. Imagine the company's surprise when AOLTW/WB notified the company at an investment meeting that we were in a lawsuit with our former attorneys, Proskauer and Proskauer's former management hires had filed an involuntary bankruptcy on us. The reason I say former was because weeks before learning of these legal actions Proskauer and their management were fired by the Board because it appeared that bogus companies and patents existed and we were just finding the beginnings of the evidence at the time.

At that time that the company learned of this from AOLTW/WB I had fled Florida where the corporate HQ was for Iviewit, because upon firing Brain Utley, he flew to California and threatened me with my life if I told anyone about the patents we were finding in his name. The problem was that I had already notified certain investors, shareholders and authorities of the crimes. That night, I called my wife in Florida and told her to pack our home and children, leave our stuff behind and flee Florida. A few days later that is what she did, we took residency at the St. Regis hotel in LA, then the Luxor, then a house in LA, then a house in Escondido, then back to Florida for the billing case, then out of Florida when the car was blown up to California. We have been on the run for our lives since that day, waiting to get these matters into court, a fair court, but that has proven difficult as these law firms have positioned to block us through conflicts and violations of public office and downright violating the law as if it did not exist.

Whilst we hid in California we prepared our case for the Florida billing case. The first thing the company did was to meet with the lawyers who had been representing the supposed Iviewit companies in the lawsuit and bankruptcy. We then fired them and replaced them with counsel, Steven Selz, Esq. and Caroline Prochotska Rogers, Esq. who helped try and put together a counter complaint that would bring to the court the crimes that at the time were known. At that time we did not know a fraction of the crimes committed. The judge would not let the case expose the criminal elements and after denying a counter complaint that contained the allegations, the judge limited the case to only billing issues. The judge ignored the fact that Proskauer did not have any bills or retainer with the companies they sued. In fact, at that time it appeared that in the billing case and the involuntary bk that the companies sued had no obligations to either Proskauer or their former management in the bk. In the two cases the parties appeared to have no claims against the companies they sued. At the time, we thought they were merely stupid and filed against the wrong companies. At the time we did not know that two sets of identical companies had been formed and that two sets of nearly identical patent applications had been filed.

Back to the billing court room where upon dismissing the counter complaint containing the allegations of fraud including fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Office and foreign nations, the judge dismissed two law firms (Steven Selz, Esq. and Schiffren & Barroway) who were representing Iviewit, on the eve of trial (this was after a trial had been scheduled and then cancelled without notice to Iviewit or our counsel). The first trial would have inevitably brought the matters into court whether the judge tried to exculpate Proskauer by limiting it to a billing case and certain false and perjured statements of Rubenstein and Wheeler in their depositions would have been fair game for trial. At the re-scheduling hearing both counsels for Iviewit submitted requests from the judge requesting to be relieved as counsel stating the other would be representing us at the trial. Selz, who had been representing the case for almost two years was asked in writing by Schiffrin and Barroway to step down as they had signed and Letter of Understanding with Iviewit to represent us in all court cases and to infuse Iviewit with two million dollars of cash, this document can be found at the iviewit site under the Supreme Court link on the left navigation bar, under the Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 130, and ruled a default judgement for Iviewi's failure in 15 days to obtain replacement counsel. Iviewit's rights to counsel denied, Iviewit's access to the court shutdown and further Selz disappeared for weeks with all the files for appeal and Schiffrin & Barroway defaulted on their signed LOU, also trying to hijack the Iviewit case files, to prevent appeal, it was obvious that Schiffrin & Barroway were planted to derail the case and with Judge Labarga this is exactly what unfolded.

Again, this case was limited to billing issues and it was not until almost two years later that the companies sued were found to be illegal mirror companies with stolen patents in Brian Utley's name. We learned this information from the patent office, who reviewed Iviewit attorney intellectual property documents from the law firms, including Proskauer, that had falsified inventors, owners and assignees on them. Immediately the Patent Office OED Director Harry I. Moatz began formal investigation of the attorneys and began to aid Iviewit in getting their patents into suspensions by petitioning the Commissioner of Patents that Fraud on the United States Patent Office had occured. Those investigations remains ongoing.

3. The only victories, if you can call them that, that Proskauer may want to inform you of, are at the state bars in New York and Florida. Yet victory may not be the word, conflict of interest and violation of public offices, are the correct words. In both state bars, Proskauer partners were found after several years, to be handling bar complaints against their partners while holding Supreme Court Bar Associations positions that conflicted with their personal involvement in the matters. Upon finding these conflicts, in Florida the matter was brought to the Supreme Court of Florida who began to review the case and when they found that the conflicts elevated to the President of Flabar and other inside employees they simply denied to hear the case and matters against Proskauer and their partners caught violating their public offices. A way out of the mess that would have caused considerable embarrasement to the Florida Supreme Court so they just denied to hear it, yet again this is a no win for either side. It is strange the court took this course but the Florida Supreme Court appears conflicted with Florida Bar as it is directly under their control and a part of the Supreme Court. This may be the single greatest threat to the institution of law and all good lawyers, to have a self regulating attorney controlled bar that can be infiltrated by guilty lawyers who handle the complaints against themselves and their firms. Even once caught in conflict and violation these attorneys if they gain control of the highest positions at the bar can then simply deny to accept complaints against those caught violating public office including themselves. In fact, legal counsel for Florida Bar, John Anthony Boggs, writes in a a letter, (Iviewit Supreme Court Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 265) that although Triggs was in violation of his office post with the Supreme Court of Florida - Florida Bar post, that is could have, would have been ok had he at the time filed a conflict waiver, which he failed to do. Should of, could have, would have, are baseless arguements, and then to clinch it, Boggs sites a reference to proposed law, instead of the law, thinking we and you would be foolish enough to rely on his citing of proposed law which was not enacted at that time. It appears Boggs may have been the officer writing the proposed legislation and changes to bar law. Was Boggs' authoring such law in attempt to exculpate bar members like Triggs, I will leave this to your interpretation. When this is then brought to the state Supreme Court of Florida, who has liability for the bar officers and the Florida Bar officers, a total miscarriage of justice can and did occur in these matters, whereby the court simply denied a citizens complaints by denying the public a chance to have the bar members prosecuted. An attorney protection agency is thereby devised, not a consumer friendly organization, as our experiences with these attorney country clubs show. Just how high in the courts and administration did Proskauer and the other law firms plant. How high does Patentgate go?

This refusal of the bar of Florida and the Supreme Court of Florida to accept complaints against their officers in violation of public office led to Iviewit filing a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States to force Florida to prosecute those caught in verified conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court denied the petition, again the case was not heard and obviously Proskauer cannot claim that as court victory as the case was not heard, again a victory for neither side. None of this is a court victory, obviously that would take a court to hear the matters and then decide after reviewing the facts. Not the case but I would like to hear Proskauer claim that either the Supreme Court of Florida or the United Supreme Court Case was decided in their favor in this matter. This is an untrue statement so I believe they will try to dance versus confront the fact that the case can still be filed and heard in court. This case scares the Iviewit shareholders, as they were denied rights to file complaints against Supreme Court of Florida bar members who had violated public offices and the bar then refused complaints against those officers caught and verified in conflict by the bar. This means that public officers caught violating office and who have formal written complaints against them, can simply position within the bar to handle the complaints against themselves and refuse docketing of complaints against these matters, quite inapposite the Florida Constitution's intent on setting up a bar. Bar complaints were filed against all of the following and were refused formal docketing by the bar: Matthew Triggs (violated a public office rule regarding representing anyone before the bar in a blackout period for officers of the bar, he represented Wheeler in such blackout period), Christopher Wheeler (intitial complaint was filed and never heard by Florida Bar so no victory for Proskauer) subsequent complaints were not docketed for formal procedures to take place, Anthony Boggs, Kelly Overstreet Johnson (she was President of Bar and handling the case matters against Wheeler and forgot to tell us she worked directly under Wheeler's brother, James Wheeler, at small real estate firm in Boca) and Eric Turner for violating internal rules of Flabar. These complaints are of tantamount interest to citizens of the US as no legal power allows the bar to dismiss bar complaints filed by Iviewit shareholders against its members without formal docketing and disposition. Reminiscent of communist Russia where complaints against public officials were dealt with by "off with your head." Yet this case behooves the question of just how high up this fiasco goes in the administration and within the legal system. Yet in all those bar complaints, including the original Wheeler, all handled by officers caught in conflict, Proskauer cannot say that any of them were heard or decided in their favor by a court of law for this is simply untrue and your review of the matters will so find.

4. In New York same game, different players, but with a big twist. At the same time we found the Florida Bar Proskauer conflicts, we found one in New York. Past President Steven C. Krane (former law clerk for Chief Judge of the New York courts Judith Kaye ), a Proskauer partner and former President of the New York State Bar Association had defended Kenneth Rubenstein his Proskauer partner in his bar complaint at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: First Department - Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Krane while having conflicting posts and an officer of the First Department DDC handled this complaint filed by the Iviewit shareholders. Krane also is the most prominent member of the disciplinary system in New York, including holding prominent posts at the First Department and he took the case while being excluded under his former position (prohibitions against representation for one year after being NYSBA President) and violation of his active roles at the First Department at the time the complaints were filed. Krane when discovered in conflict then even represented himself in his own complaint while holding positions at the First Department DDC, talk about a conflict, Iviewit Supreme Court Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 215 - Krane suicide note. Note that Krane attempts to state that he is not conflicted because of his NYSBA role, which is false, but more importantly he fails to disclose his conflicts with his roles at the First Department, yet he was busted by Clerk of the First Department, Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, who disclosed after Krane's suicide note that she served on a First Department Disciplinary Committee with Krane and Cahill (chief counsel of First Dept DDC) and whereby Krane held a role, amongst others, as a referee. This confession, led to further complaints agaisnt Krane and now against Cahill, for both had tried to cover up this most grand conflict and violation of Supreme Court of New York Disciplnart Department office violations. Prior to Wolfe's confession, Cahill had tried to defend Krane's representation of Rubenstein and himself, Cahill's inquiry is still under investigation by Martin Gold, Exhibit 237 and 323 and inquiry #2004.1122. Mr. Gold has never contacted us regarding the disposition of this inquiry and fails to return calls or letters, perhaps your journalistic efforts will get further with this public inquiry.

Before taking the defense of Rubenstein or himself, Krane failed to seek any waivers or conflict of interest checks from the Bar or First Department DDC and certainly there is cause for concern here. That concern led to a petition with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department and after review by five justices, Rubenstein, Krane and Joao were ordered for formal IVESTIGATION by that court, see Iviewit Exhibit Gallery, Exhibit 295. The matters were transferred to the Second Department Disciplinary Committee who decided to try and dismiss the cases on review and skirt the court ordered investigation. Upon recieving a letter stating that Second Department was not investigating per the five justices court order, we found that the case worker at Second Department DDC had admitted conflicts with Steven Krane and we filed complaints against her. These complaints were not formally docketed and disposed of in accordance with law, she denied to file complaints against herself, acting as chief counsel for that department. We took the matters to Lawrence DiGiovana the Chairman of Second Department DDC and he refused to file charges against chief counsel for failing to docket the complaints, and a complaint was filed against him. Also, and still under investigation, is a complaint against Thomas Cahill of the Chief Counsel of the First Department DDC for his involvement with Krane that caused the conflicts to go unchecked originally.
At that time, it was learned that Krane who clerked for Judith Kaye (and she is one of the most powerful members of the disciplinary committee)had far more conflict with this relation. The reason, Judith Kaye whose office refused to even answer the calls after the mess began, although they did take submissions from Iviewit, was found to be married to a Proskauer partner Stephen Krane. Both Krane and Stephen Kaye are members of the newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department and this means from the Chief Judge down through all of the disciplinarydepartments they control, New York cannot hear the matters without bias and prejudice. As Krane, Rubenstein, Stephen Krane (and through marriage Judith Kaye) are all conflicted and in fact Iviewit shareholders, their interest should never have come near these complaints, but instead direct involvement is found. Judith Kaye also has interest in defending her husband and former law clerk from facing these charges as they could end up serving lengthy federal sentences and total loss of assets, especially if a RICO is brought against Proskauer and those allegations have been made to the proper federal investigators of the matters and are being investigated formally. Yet, you may ask what happened to the Court ordered investigations of Krane, Rubenstein and Joao, the answer is that they were railroaded by the Second Department DDC and Second Department who tried to dismiss them on review and avoid the formal court ordered investigation of five justices. This will now lead to the next 5 United States Supreme Court petitions to be filed by the Iviewit shareholders. In New York it is futile to try and get the matters investigated as court ordered because the conflicts rise to the top, so we will beginpetitioning the Supreme Court shortly to force formal investigations and force the Bar to docket complaints against their members caught in the fiasco who refuse to file complaints against themselves. Again, in New York the only court that has heard the matters has ruled for formal investigation to be completed that has never occured. Even at the Second Department Proskauer cannot claim that a court heard their case and ruled in their favor as this is patently false and I would love to see that in the press. The Second Department tried to wiggle out with a dismissal on review but this means they never heard the case.
What is outrageous is that all of these lawyers accused fear the court room against one pro-se inventor, so they have to use every dirty legal trick to avoid the court, position in conflicts, abuse public offices, and then try to state that those are court room victories, how weak. The letters they have from the Florida Bar and New York departments trying to say Proskauer was not patent counsel or the likes are worthless, all tendered by people in conflict who have evaded prosecution through clever court politicking and perhaps payola and the likes. Again, it behooves the question of just how high up in the administration and legal community this crime elevates. Further, they have not been cleared in a single formal investigation by state, federal and international authorities. Ask Proskauer, if Eliot and Iviewit are wrong or liars, why are thier patents in suspension pending charges that Rubenstein and 8 others have committed fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Offices. Why are all the other criminal investigations still underway? Why were you not able to win a decisive court room victory in the allegations of crimes (do not let them bore you trying to convince you the billing case they instituted vindicated them from federal, international or state crimes, those matters were never heard in that court).
Please address these issues with Proskauer. As to being told to take down a news story, it appears they fear the press and public disclosure. I would consult a lawyer as to what they can do but I do not think they can do much other than try to get a court order to take it down. You are astute to note that if they have nothing to worry about... Yet, they have a lot to worry about as again the truth being told will bring down the house and the crimes if prosecuted by the goverment are so voliminous as to cause federal prison sentences for all involved. They appear to be using the monies stolen from my technologies to buy off government seats, even within esteemed institutions such as Supreme Courts and state bars, to stave off the inevitable court room day where they have to face the evidences against them. Kudos to them for holding it off this far, yet it has just entangled so many more people and now to hold off the justice department and other investigators or try to derail those, would take cabinet level officers at the Commerce Dept, the Patent Dept, the FBI, the DOJ and others and this would inevitably lead to a Patentgate for those in the administration and courts found to have violated thier public offices or laws. How high did it go is the question asked by Iviewit shareholders and others and until a conflict free court is found Iviewit does not wish to disclose information relating to the elements we are already aware of and our view of how high this goes. It is interesting to note, the Florida billing case was judged by Jorge Labarga who is the Florida judge who threw the election of Gore v. Bush to the Supreme Court who decided quite unconstitutionally the President, instead of allowing for a recount of the bogus ballots. The threads are deep, I do not want your life to be jeopardized, one look at my family's car blown up should scare you, knowing that the fire inspectors of FLorida have already determined incinary devices and accelarants to have been used. I was evicted from my house in Florida last year by a court, Labarga's courthouse, W. Palm Beach, where all of our rights were denied in yet another antict to destroy our ability to bring these matters to the public. Yet, as you have probably read at our site, I fear no evil and so I pursue with all the others who wait for the truth to be told and our inventions returned. Have you called Crossbow Ventures for their story and what has happened after their meetings with the Inspector General of the Small Business Administration.
I would love to see the letters Proskauer sent to both you and Erik.
Best regards ~ Eliot

No comments: