"" « September 24, 2009 Public Hearing: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner
Prepared Statement of Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit to New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Regarding Trillion Dollar Iviewit Federal Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Larnder, IBM, Intel, SGI, Lockheed and More »
September 24, 2009 Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson NY: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Intel, IBM, SGI & Lockheed Martin.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Senator John Sampson Chairman
SUBJECT: The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PURPOSE: This hearing will review the mission, procedures and level of public satisfaction with the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts as well as the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Monday June 8, 2009
NYC
250 Broadway
NY NY
10 A.M.
19th Floor
ORAL TESTIMONY BY INVITATION ONLY
Witness List for Judiciary Hearing 9/24/09
The Judicial & Attorney Disciplinary Process in the State of New York
1. Richard Kuse of New City, NY
2. Victor Kovner of the Fund for Modem Courts
3. Douglas Higbee of Mamaroneck, NY
4. Judith Herskowitz of Miami Beach, FL
5. Peter Gonzalez of Troy, NY
6. Andrea Wilkinson of Rensselaer, NY
7. Maria Gkanios of Mahopac, NY
8. Dominic Lieto of Mahopac, NY
9. Regina Felton Esq of Brooklyn, NY
10. Kathryn Malarkey of Purchase, NY
11. Nora Renzuli, Esq. of Staten Island, NY
12. Stephanie Klein of Long Beach, NY
13. Ike Aruti of Rosedale, NY
14. Terrence Finnan of Keene, NY
15. Gizella Weisshaus, NY
16. Eliot I. Bernstein of Boca Raton, FL
17. Suzanne McCormick & Patrick Handley of NY
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the entity that is legally responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of attorneys in New York State. The Appellate Division Departments have created grievance committees that are charged with the investigation of complaints against attorneys.
Within the First Judicial Department the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division investigates complaints against attorneys.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by the State Constitution and is charged with investigating complaints against Judges and Justices of the Unified Court System.
According to the 2009 Report of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, there were 1,923 complaints filed in 2008. Yet of these complaints only 262 were investigated and of those, 173 were dismissed.
This hearing will examine the processes and procedures that are followed by the various agencies charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules and regulations that must be followed by the Judiciary and the Bar in the State of New York. It will also evaluate public satisfaction with the disciplinary process. ""
Full Article, Source of Post and VIDEO Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159
posted HERE by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Showing posts with label IBM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IBM. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Does Mary Shapiro SEC Boss, Know about the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case and Its HUGE Implications to Shareholders?
YOU Bet She Does...
How Will She Explain what She has Let Happen
in a Trillion Dollar Liability ...???
It seems from Many documents at www.Iviewit.TV That Mary Shapiro of the SEC had knowledgle long ago about what Proskauer Rose was up to and yet .. what ?? the Standford affair is some NEW Shocker of a Story, yet Mary Shapiro had been given notice by Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit Company years before the Billion Dollar Scandal hit the Main Stream Media.
Does Mary Shapiro or the SEC have ANY Liability to the Shareholders when they had advance knowledge of the Players and did nothing to prevent the Standford Affair?
$65 Billion in the Bernie Madoff Scheme is NOT all that Mary Shapiro and the SEC missed... What about the Standford Affair - Billions and Connected to Proskauer Rose. What About Enron and Proskauer Connections - and what about all the Players, Shareholder Fraud, and Liability that the Eliot Bernstein of the Iviewit Technologies Company has brought to Mary Shapiro and the SEC's Attention ?
What do they say, I just did not know or see this coming? So Sorry you Lost Billions - I had no Way of Knowing... well Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger says.. "BULL, Mary Shapiro and the SEC knew" and they IGNORED leads, had no one seemingly watching websites, reading documents, scouring blogs or even looking into leads that led to BILLIONS of Innocent Investors losing their Money.
The SEC has no purpose that is really beneficial and in my Opinion is just as susceptible as being Bought Off as anyone other Corrupt Government Agent, Attorney, CEO or Judge" .
Won't it be Amusing when Warner Brothers, Intel Corp., Sony, AOL, and all those Billion Dollar Tech Companies go Belly up and take the Shareholders to Bankruptcy because of the Contracts they signed and did not fulfill with the Iviewit Technologies Company that puts them in Connection and at least in part Liable for a Trillion Dollar Liability that they SEEM to have overlooked on their Books with all their bragging of Profits this quarter... blah .. blah.. blah.. and what Does Mary Shapiro Say? Is she even Acknowledging any of it?
Won't it be Hysterically when the SEC, when Mary Shapiro says to the Warner Brothers, AOL, Intel Corp, Sony ... Shareholders that Gee I just didn't see that Trillion Dollar HIT Coming.. We had no warning.. other then the years of complaints filed from the Iviewit Technologies Company in Which I IGNORED.. gee Sorry..
It is not Personal, it is Business,
Mary Shapiro - YOUR FIRED !!!..
posted By Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox...
Crystal Cox
More on the Obvious, Blatant Shareholder Fraud among tons of Major Tech Companies.. and the Iviewit Stolen Patent Story at www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.Iviewit.TV over a thousand documents of Proof So Far.
Mary Shapiro
Research Links on Mary Shapiro and her Knowledge of possible Shareholder Fraud in which, to me it looks like she did nothing, and well Billions upon Billions are lost by innocent Investors. And the Potention of Trillions More...
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20SEC%20FAX%20Cover%20Page.pdf
http://www.trialbyblog.com/2010/01/eliot-i-bernstein-intel-corporation-sec.html
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-iviewit-trillion-fed-suit-defendant-proskauer-rose-sued-in-global-class-action-re-stanford-ponzi-1252249099.html
http://seekingalpha.com/user/478415/comments/highest-rated
http://www.stolenpatent.com/2010_01_01_archive.html
Gee Sorry ... NO One Brought it to My Attention: I just Did not See ANY sign of this COMING... What a Crock that Will BE..
Crystal Cox Blogger
How Will She Explain what She has Let Happen
in a Trillion Dollar Liability ...???
It seems from Many documents at www.Iviewit.TV That Mary Shapiro of the SEC had knowledgle long ago about what Proskauer Rose was up to and yet .. what ?? the Standford affair is some NEW Shocker of a Story, yet Mary Shapiro had been given notice by Eliot Bernstein and the Iviewit Company years before the Billion Dollar Scandal hit the Main Stream Media.
Does Mary Shapiro or the SEC have ANY Liability to the Shareholders when they had advance knowledge of the Players and did nothing to prevent the Standford Affair?
$65 Billion in the Bernie Madoff Scheme is NOT all that Mary Shapiro and the SEC missed... What about the Standford Affair - Billions and Connected to Proskauer Rose. What About Enron and Proskauer Connections - and what about all the Players, Shareholder Fraud, and Liability that the Eliot Bernstein of the Iviewit Technologies Company has brought to Mary Shapiro and the SEC's Attention ?
What do they say, I just did not know or see this coming? So Sorry you Lost Billions - I had no Way of Knowing... well Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger says.. "BULL, Mary Shapiro and the SEC knew" and they IGNORED leads, had no one seemingly watching websites, reading documents, scouring blogs or even looking into leads that led to BILLIONS of Innocent Investors losing their Money.
The SEC has no purpose that is really beneficial and in my Opinion is just as susceptible as being Bought Off as anyone other Corrupt Government Agent, Attorney, CEO or Judge" .
Won't it be Amusing when Warner Brothers, Intel Corp., Sony, AOL, and all those Billion Dollar Tech Companies go Belly up and take the Shareholders to Bankruptcy because of the Contracts they signed and did not fulfill with the Iviewit Technologies Company that puts them in Connection and at least in part Liable for a Trillion Dollar Liability that they SEEM to have overlooked on their Books with all their bragging of Profits this quarter... blah .. blah.. blah.. and what Does Mary Shapiro Say? Is she even Acknowledging any of it?
Won't it be Hysterically when the SEC, when Mary Shapiro says to the Warner Brothers, AOL, Intel Corp, Sony ... Shareholders that Gee I just didn't see that Trillion Dollar HIT Coming.. We had no warning.. other then the years of complaints filed from the Iviewit Technologies Company in Which I IGNORED.. gee Sorry..
It is not Personal, it is Business,
Mary Shapiro - YOUR FIRED !!!..
posted By Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox...
Crystal Cox
More on the Obvious, Blatant Shareholder Fraud among tons of Major Tech Companies.. and the Iviewit Stolen Patent Story at www.DeniedPatent.com and at www.Iviewit.TV over a thousand documents of Proof So Far.
Mary Shapiro
Research Links on Mary Shapiro and her Knowledge of possible Shareholder Fraud in which, to me it looks like she did nothing, and well Billions upon Billions are lost by innocent Investors. And the Potention of Trillions More...
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090325%20SEC%20FAX%20Cover%20Page.pdf
http://www.trialbyblog.com/2010/01/eliot-i-bernstein-intel-corporation-sec.html
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-iviewit-trillion-fed-suit-defendant-proskauer-rose-sued-in-global-class-action-re-stanford-ponzi-1252249099.html
http://seekingalpha.com/user/478415/comments/highest-rated
http://www.stolenpatent.com/2010_01_01_archive.html
Gee Sorry ... NO One Brought it to My Attention: I just Did not See ANY sign of this COMING... What a Crock that Will BE..
Crystal Cox Blogger
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Khulumani optimistic ahead of apartheid court case - and the Greedy Evil IBM Connections to All This.
"" WITH the class action lawsuit brought against companies alleged to have collaborated with the apartheid regime due to resume in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Monday, support group Khulumani said last year had been a significant year for the case.
The last-ditch attempt by six corporations, including Daimler and Ford, to stop the application from continuing, will be heard.
If the corporations fail, the matter will proceed to a jury trial.
In April last year, the Southern District Court of New York dismissed some claims brought by Khulumani against corporations that had been identified merely for doing business with SA’s apartheid government.
The surviving claims are against companies accused of aiding and abetting serious crimes such as torture and extrajudicial killing, committed in violation of international law by the apartheid regime.
Khulumani national director Marjorie Jobson said yesterday the turning point was in April when Southern District of New York Judge Shira Scheindlin found that corporations could be found responsible for aiding and abetting human rights abuses that violated customary international law, through their relationships with rogue governments.
Scheindlin said litigation would contribute to the continuing process of truth recovery about apartheid, its causes and effects, and who might be found to bear responsibility.
The claimants then filed an amended application in May against Daimler, Ford, Fujitsu, General Motors, IBM and Rheinmetall.
They sought an order declaring that the companies aided and abetted the commission of apartheid, in violation of international law. They want the court to award the claimants punitive damages arising out of the unlawful behaviour .
Jobson said other positive developments included Justice Minister Jeff Radebe writing a letter to Judge Shira Scheindlin in August supporting the New York court as a forum for the case, and a brief by the US government which told the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in November that the appeal by the defendants, which wanted the case to be stopped, should be dismissed.
Jobson said the court had asked the parties to submit opinions on whether the violations of customary international law for which the Alien Tort Claims Act provided jurisdiction could encompass noncriminal conduct, and on whether customary international law recognised corporate criminal liability. ""
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=90867
Corporate Greed need to have their Dirty Deeds brought to Light. It is Not Ok to hurt people, Violate Peoples Rights, Kill People in the Name of IBM or Ford making more Paper - more Green Paper.
It is Seriously Time for Corporate Accountability.
Judge Shira Scheindlin seems to have a conscience and seems to be able to See through the Chronic Lies big Corporations tell along with the damage they do to Real People along the way, as their Attorneys Cover Up for them and seem to own most every court in the land somehow. Hopefully the Good Lawyers, and Good Judges can start speaking out and Doing the Right Thing and finally get some where in STOPPING the Evils of Corporations such as IBM, Ford, and Other Mega Corporations that deem profit more important then people.
Corporate Responsibility
Related Links
www.ibmTheWidowMaker.com
IBM
also Check Out Connection David Kappos of the USPTO has to IBM, Connections Kenneth Rubenstein of the Mega-Law Firm Proskauer Rose connections to IBM- and the connections that Proskauer Rose has to the New York Supreme Court and the New York Bar.
IBM
Also see www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV for what Corporations - IBM included have been able to do to the right of inventors, their human rights, civil rights, and quality of life. And for IBM connections to Judges, Patent Attorneys, USPTO and More Conflicts of Interest tha assist IBM in their behavior.
Ibm
Eliot Bernstein
Iviewit Inventors
The last-ditch attempt by six corporations, including Daimler and Ford, to stop the application from continuing, will be heard.
If the corporations fail, the matter will proceed to a jury trial.
In April last year, the Southern District Court of New York dismissed some claims brought by Khulumani against corporations that had been identified merely for doing business with SA’s apartheid government.
The surviving claims are against companies accused of aiding and abetting serious crimes such as torture and extrajudicial killing, committed in violation of international law by the apartheid regime.
Khulumani national director Marjorie Jobson said yesterday the turning point was in April when Southern District of New York Judge Shira Scheindlin found that corporations could be found responsible for aiding and abetting human rights abuses that violated customary international law, through their relationships with rogue governments.
Scheindlin said litigation would contribute to the continuing process of truth recovery about apartheid, its causes and effects, and who might be found to bear responsibility.
The claimants then filed an amended application in May against Daimler, Ford, Fujitsu, General Motors, IBM and Rheinmetall.
They sought an order declaring that the companies aided and abetted the commission of apartheid, in violation of international law. They want the court to award the claimants punitive damages arising out of the unlawful behaviour .
Jobson said other positive developments included Justice Minister Jeff Radebe writing a letter to Judge Shira Scheindlin in August supporting the New York court as a forum for the case, and a brief by the US government which told the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in November that the appeal by the defendants, which wanted the case to be stopped, should be dismissed.
Jobson said the court had asked the parties to submit opinions on whether the violations of customary international law for which the Alien Tort Claims Act provided jurisdiction could encompass noncriminal conduct, and on whether customary international law recognised corporate criminal liability. ""
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=90867
Corporate Greed need to have their Dirty Deeds brought to Light. It is Not Ok to hurt people, Violate Peoples Rights, Kill People in the Name of IBM or Ford making more Paper - more Green Paper.
It is Seriously Time for Corporate Accountability.
Judge Shira Scheindlin seems to have a conscience and seems to be able to See through the Chronic Lies big Corporations tell along with the damage they do to Real People along the way, as their Attorneys Cover Up for them and seem to own most every court in the land somehow. Hopefully the Good Lawyers, and Good Judges can start speaking out and Doing the Right Thing and finally get some where in STOPPING the Evils of Corporations such as IBM, Ford, and Other Mega Corporations that deem profit more important then people.
Corporate Responsibility
Related Links
www.ibmTheWidowMaker.com
IBM
also Check Out Connection David Kappos of the USPTO has to IBM, Connections Kenneth Rubenstein of the Mega-Law Firm Proskauer Rose connections to IBM- and the connections that Proskauer Rose has to the New York Supreme Court and the New York Bar.
IBM
Also see www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV for what Corporations - IBM included have been able to do to the right of inventors, their human rights, civil rights, and quality of life. And for IBM connections to Judges, Patent Attorneys, USPTO and More Conflicts of Interest tha assist IBM in their behavior.
Ibm
Eliot Bernstein
Iviewit Inventors
Friday, January 1, 2010
CEO Paul Otellini Says - "It was a Surprise to Us" - this is the Line of BULL he Will Feed you about Iviewit when the TRUTH Surfaces.
" Intel CEO Paul Otellini Reacts to the Galleon Group Investigation
Monday, October 19, 2009
SUSIE GHARIB: More repercussions today from the big insider trading investigation at hedge fund Galleon Group. IBM put a top executive on administrative leave.
The move came after Robert Moffat, a senior vice president at IBM was arrested for allegedly passing tips to Galleon. An Intel executive was also implicated in the Galleon case. We had the opportunity to sit down with Intel CEO Paul Otellini today. Scott Gurvey began by asking him about Intel's connection to the Galleon insider trading case.
PAUL OTELLINI, PRESIDENT & CEO, INTEL: It was a surprise to us. And to my knowledge, no one at Intel knew about it, including the employee.
And they have not asked for our cooperation. Of course we would give it if they have.
SCOTT GURVEY, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: And does it require any special changes at this point in the way that you do business? I mean you must have these kind of protections.
Paul OTELLINI: I don't think so. People are people. And you know, our employees know in the area where he worked they know that there is a zero tolerance policy on this kind of thing. You just don't do it and the sake of your job and who knows what is true. I don't want to proclaim him guilty, but the allegations suggest that he leaked information. Whether he made any money off it or not, I don't know.
GURVEY: The other question of course goes on with some of the anti- trust issues that Intel is facing. There's an AMD lawsuit that begins, I believe goes to trial maybe next year. There is the EU which is still -- which is still outstanding. What is your position at this point on those? I mean is it the point where you are trying to make any kind of a settlement or arrangements or change the way you do things or is this going to be something that will be adjudicated?
Paul OTELLINI: They are on independent paths, independent parallel paths. The AMD case comes to trial in Delaware late March, early April. As much as you can I'm looking forward to that trial because it is the first time that these allegations will be brought forth in the manner which has clear evidentiary rules, third party judicial things, the jury, all the things that we take for granted in America in terms of justice and getting your story out will happen there.
GURVEY: And you're saying the kind of things you don't have in terms of the EU proceedings.
Paul OTELLINI: We certainly didn't see that in Europe. In Europe the same commission that begins the investigation completes the investigation, judges the investigation, levees the fine, is the same group of people. There is no third party independent review of that.
That first happens on appeal which is the quarter first (ph) instance and in Europe and that's probably two to three years out.
GURVEY: The earnings report surprised everybody, surprised them in a very positive way. Is that -- how much of that is cost-cutting? How much of that is new demand that you are seeing?
Paul OTELLINI: This quarter's news was all demand. Demand and some pipeline refilling on inventory which is seasonal. I don't think it is anything that is out of the ordinary. But it was the largest Q2 to Q3 growth of top line that we've seen in three decades plus and so it was very solid quarter. I think more than half of that was probably demand and the other was building the pipe for what looks to be the seasonal Q4 peak. The back to school selling season was very good.
GURVEY: And do you see that going forward in the holiday season with the release now of Microsoft's Windows 7 and things like that?
Paul OTELLINI: Yes, I do. I mean this is a global phenomenon. We saw in Q3 and actually the whole year has been global phenomenon. It's been consumer driven around the world. That's good. That says that when enterprise starts buying again, perhaps next year, you get an additive effect on top of that.
GURVEY: So the consumers will come first. Do you think the enterprise will pick up next year?
Paul OTELLINI: Eventually they have to. The fleets of corporations, the machines are aging pretty rapidly. The average notebook is over four years old, the average desktop is over three years old. That mean these are out of warranty. So the break-fix problem is costing more than buying a new machine at this point.
GURVEY: Let me ask you while you are here, do you have actually a position on some of these health reform strategies? I mean, for example, when you consider the cost factor of having an employee, an American employee versus an employee in any of the other countries that you operate.
Paul OTELLINI : We've had a very proactive program in the U.S. on wellness, employee wellness for three or four years now. And that has allowed to us attenuate the growth for the cost per employee over a three year period.
The things that we're looking at in terms of the legislation are really more focused along that line. So electronic medical records drive productivity up, take errors down, lower costs we like.
The home health care environment, the wellness parts of the program we like. The outcome- based payment systems we like because they are focused on results. Doctors and hospitals that deliver better results will get paid more. That is a good thing. We're not getting in the middle of the debate of who pays and what is the cost. There is enough people in the middle of that one. Whatever system we do get we would just like to be more efficient.
GURVEY: And you are, of course, opening some new facilities in the United States so this hasn't deterred you.
OTELLINI: Our next generation of technology will only be open in the United States this time. All 32 nanometer technologies are here and they're in four factories in the U.S.
GURVEY: What else is coming up that you can tell us about that I haven't asked you about?
Paul OTELLINI: I can't share those secrets with you.
GURVEY: You would have to shoot me.
OTELLINI: I would have to shoot you.
GURVEY: All right then the next time. Thank you.
OTELLINI: You are welcome. "
Source of Post
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/
intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
CEO Paul Otellini - Above the Law ???
Zero Tolerance Policy Says CEO Paul Otellini - I Say Bull … he not only tolerates a WHOLE lot - CEO Paul Otellini Hides information from Shareholders that Could affect them and Legally breaks the law by NOT honoring Contracts.
Monday, October 19, 2009
SUSIE GHARIB: More repercussions today from the big insider trading investigation at hedge fund Galleon Group. IBM put a top executive on administrative leave.
The move came after Robert Moffat, a senior vice president at IBM was arrested for allegedly passing tips to Galleon. An Intel executive was also implicated in the Galleon case. We had the opportunity to sit down with Intel CEO Paul Otellini today. Scott Gurvey began by asking him about Intel's connection to the Galleon insider trading case.
PAUL OTELLINI, PRESIDENT & CEO, INTEL: It was a surprise to us. And to my knowledge, no one at Intel knew about it, including the employee.
And they have not asked for our cooperation. Of course we would give it if they have.
SCOTT GURVEY, NIGHTLY BUSINESS REPORT CORRESPONDENT: And does it require any special changes at this point in the way that you do business? I mean you must have these kind of protections.
Paul OTELLINI: I don't think so. People are people. And you know, our employees know in the area where he worked they know that there is a zero tolerance policy on this kind of thing. You just don't do it and the sake of your job and who knows what is true. I don't want to proclaim him guilty, but the allegations suggest that he leaked information. Whether he made any money off it or not, I don't know.
GURVEY: The other question of course goes on with some of the anti- trust issues that Intel is facing. There's an AMD lawsuit that begins, I believe goes to trial maybe next year. There is the EU which is still -- which is still outstanding. What is your position at this point on those? I mean is it the point where you are trying to make any kind of a settlement or arrangements or change the way you do things or is this going to be something that will be adjudicated?
Paul OTELLINI: They are on independent paths, independent parallel paths. The AMD case comes to trial in Delaware late March, early April. As much as you can I'm looking forward to that trial because it is the first time that these allegations will be brought forth in the manner which has clear evidentiary rules, third party judicial things, the jury, all the things that we take for granted in America in terms of justice and getting your story out will happen there.
GURVEY: And you're saying the kind of things you don't have in terms of the EU proceedings.
Paul OTELLINI: We certainly didn't see that in Europe. In Europe the same commission that begins the investigation completes the investigation, judges the investigation, levees the fine, is the same group of people. There is no third party independent review of that.
That first happens on appeal which is the quarter first (ph) instance and in Europe and that's probably two to three years out.
GURVEY: The earnings report surprised everybody, surprised them in a very positive way. Is that -- how much of that is cost-cutting? How much of that is new demand that you are seeing?
Paul OTELLINI: This quarter's news was all demand. Demand and some pipeline refilling on inventory which is seasonal. I don't think it is anything that is out of the ordinary. But it was the largest Q2 to Q3 growth of top line that we've seen in three decades plus and so it was very solid quarter. I think more than half of that was probably demand and the other was building the pipe for what looks to be the seasonal Q4 peak. The back to school selling season was very good.
GURVEY: And do you see that going forward in the holiday season with the release now of Microsoft's Windows 7 and things like that?
Paul OTELLINI: Yes, I do. I mean this is a global phenomenon. We saw in Q3 and actually the whole year has been global phenomenon. It's been consumer driven around the world. That's good. That says that when enterprise starts buying again, perhaps next year, you get an additive effect on top of that.
GURVEY: So the consumers will come first. Do you think the enterprise will pick up next year?
Paul OTELLINI: Eventually they have to. The fleets of corporations, the machines are aging pretty rapidly. The average notebook is over four years old, the average desktop is over three years old. That mean these are out of warranty. So the break-fix problem is costing more than buying a new machine at this point.
GURVEY: Let me ask you while you are here, do you have actually a position on some of these health reform strategies? I mean, for example, when you consider the cost factor of having an employee, an American employee versus an employee in any of the other countries that you operate.
Paul OTELLINI : We've had a very proactive program in the U.S. on wellness, employee wellness for three or four years now. And that has allowed to us attenuate the growth for the cost per employee over a three year period.
The things that we're looking at in terms of the legislation are really more focused along that line. So electronic medical records drive productivity up, take errors down, lower costs we like.
The home health care environment, the wellness parts of the program we like. The outcome- based payment systems we like because they are focused on results. Doctors and hospitals that deliver better results will get paid more. That is a good thing. We're not getting in the middle of the debate of who pays and what is the cost. There is enough people in the middle of that one. Whatever system we do get we would just like to be more efficient.
GURVEY: And you are, of course, opening some new facilities in the United States so this hasn't deterred you.
OTELLINI: Our next generation of technology will only be open in the United States this time. All 32 nanometer technologies are here and they're in four factories in the U.S.
GURVEY: What else is coming up that you can tell us about that I haven't asked you about?
Paul OTELLINI: I can't share those secrets with you.
GURVEY: You would have to shoot me.
OTELLINI: I would have to shoot you.
GURVEY: All right then the next time. Thank you.
OTELLINI: You are welcome. "
Source of Post
http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transcripts/
intel_ceo_paul_otellini_on_galleon_group_091019/
CEO Paul Otellini - Above the Law ???
Zero Tolerance Policy Says CEO Paul Otellini - I Say Bull … he not only tolerates a WHOLE lot - CEO Paul Otellini Hides information from Shareholders that Could affect them and Legally breaks the law by NOT honoring Contracts.
CEO Paul Otellini cares about Employee Wellness.. Are you Kidding.. Cares about the Quality of life of some but Condones the Total Ruin of Others.. Makes No Sense.
CEO Paul Otellini Claims that this is NEWS TO US - my Guess is when the Shareholders are Faced with the TRUTH about the Iviewit Stolen Patent and the Trillion Dollar Liability that Intel Faces, that CEO Paul Otellini will have the Same Lies to Tell … “It Was a Surprise to Us”. BULL.
I wonder if CEO Paul Otellini is Looking Forward to His Trial as he becomes involved in the Trillion Dollar Patent Heist - in FULL Public View - Coming SOON to a Court Near YOU.
And CEO Paul Otellini seems to be BRAGGING about the Zillions Intel is Making.. Well I can See why if they Do NOT have to Pay for Patents They are Using.
Doe Shareholder Still Have NO Idea About the Trillion Dollar Liability with the Iviewit Stolen Patents and Contracts Intell Assumed .....
Why is CEO Paul Otellini NOT talking about this.
Paul Otellini does know inside information that WOULD definately affect the Price of Intel Stocks and When the Truth is ALLOWED in the US Lack of Justice System.. WELL Intel Corporation and Shareholders Will Certainly Be taking a Financial Hit.
And this Financial Fiasco is Something that THE then "General Counsel" Bruce Sewell KNEW about and So did and DOES CEO Paul Otellini.
CEO Paul Otellini
Intel IBM Lockheed SGI in TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL RICO/INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT
Posted Wednesday 23rd December 2009 17:50 GMT
In FTC whacks Intel with anticompetition complaint
IBM has a history of WAR CRIMES?
Currently they are being sued in Federal US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin's court for Aparthied related WAR CRIMES. IBM's role, same as their role in WWII, giving machines to tabulate the loot from victims and track their blood lines to hunt and kill their bloodlines.
Little known fact is that IBM had their employees in every single NAZI concentration camp, yes, somebody needs to count the gold fillings and how many were burned, hanged, shot, showered (gased).
Now for the scary part, their software is involved I believe with Lockheed to be controlling the US Census data collection. Buyer be beware.
PS - on a final note, IBM Intel Lockheed SGI are also in a 12-count, 12-trillion dollar lawsuit, boy I hope they are accounting for it on their books, relating to their role in stealing technologies from Inventor Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies and others. According to FASB No 5, both liabilities need to be accounted for but they are not.
If you own IBM shares you may have rescissory rights dating back to 1999.
Also may be concerned that the LAWSUIT has been marked legally "RELATED" to an inside Whistleblower lawsuit by Judge Scheindlin.
Intel is also involved as a Defendant in the Lawsuit for more information on Intel’s involvement see SEC Complaint exposing possible financial crimes relating to FASB No 5 accounting rules and more @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf (note Bruce Sewell who letter is addressed to with Paul Otellini, just left longtime Intel job for Apple, wonder if Apple knows of his baggage) and
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=234
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
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division
First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
Related cases by judge
(08 cv 6368) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
Eliot I. Bernstein
Source of Post
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/38893/
In FTC whacks Intel with anticompetition complaint
IBM has a history of WAR CRIMES?
Currently they are being sued in Federal US District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin's court for Aparthied related WAR CRIMES. IBM's role, same as their role in WWII, giving machines to tabulate the loot from victims and track their blood lines to hunt and kill their bloodlines.
Little known fact is that IBM had their employees in every single NAZI concentration camp, yes, somebody needs to count the gold fillings and how many were burned, hanged, shot, showered (gased).
Now for the scary part, their software is involved I believe with Lockheed to be controlling the US Census data collection. Buyer be beware.
PS - on a final note, IBM Intel Lockheed SGI are also in a 12-count, 12-trillion dollar lawsuit, boy I hope they are accounting for it on their books, relating to their role in stealing technologies from Inventor Eliot Bernstein of Iviewit Technologies and others. According to FASB No 5, both liabilities need to be accounted for but they are not.
If you own IBM shares you may have rescissory rights dating back to 1999.
Also may be concerned that the LAWSUIT has been marked legally "RELATED" to an inside Whistleblower lawsuit by Judge Scheindlin.
Intel is also involved as a Defendant in the Lawsuit for more information on Intel’s involvement see SEC Complaint exposing possible financial crimes relating to FASB No 5 accounting rules and more @ http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090306%20Intel%20Demand%20Letter%20&%20Liability%20Exposure%20%20Signed%203549l.pdf (note Bruce Sewell who letter is addressed to with Paul Otellini, just left longtime Intel job for Apple, wonder if Apple knows of his baggage) and
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=234
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
Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
(07cv09599) Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT
(07cv11196) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division
First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
(07cv11612) Esposito v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv00526) Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
(08cv02391) McKeown v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv02852) Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
(08cv03305) Carvel v The State of New York, et al., and,
(08cv4053) Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.
(08cv4438) Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.
Related cases by judge
(08 cv 6368) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
Eliot I. Bernstein
Source of Post
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/38893/
Sunday, December 27, 2009
I B M - THE WIDOW MAKER and THE ORPHAN MAKER
B Y
M A D A M E P J B A I L E Y
A W H I S T L E B L O W E R ' S M E M O I R
P A R T 1 - N O B L U E S F O R B I G B L U E
P A R T 2 - I C A N S H O W Y O U B E T T E R T H A N I C A N T E L L Y O U !
S U B - T I T L E : T A K I N G O N I B M F O R $ 1 0 0 0 O R L E S S
P A R T 3 - O H, L E T T H E S U N S H I N E I N !
S U B - T I T L E : W H Y T H E F R E E P R E S S & N E W S M E D I A S T I L L
R E I G N A S T H E 4 T H B R A N C H O F G O V E R N M E N T
This is Incredible Stuff Folks, Check it Out and Spread the News.... We are Bloggers, We are Warriors of Light... We are Walking into Rooms where Bad things have Reigned KING for Centuries Upon Centuries and We are Turning on the Light for All to See...
M A D A M E P J B A I L E Y
A W H I S T L E B L O W E R ' S M E M O I R
P A R T 1 - N O B L U E S F O R B I G B L U E
P A R T 2 - I C A N S H O W Y O U B E T T E R T H A N I C A N T E L L Y O U !
S U B - T I T L E : T A K I N G O N I B M F O R $ 1 0 0 0 O R L E S S
P A R T 3 - O H, L E T T H E S U N S H I N E I N !
S U B - T I T L E : W H Y T H E F R E E P R E S S & N E W S M E D I A S T I L L
R E I G N A S T H E 4 T H B R A N C H O F G O V E R N M E N T
From an Awesome Website....
This is Incredible Stuff Folks, Check it Out and Spread the News.... We are Bloggers, We are Warriors of Light... We are Walking into Rooms where Bad things have Reigned KING for Centuries Upon Centuries and We are Turning on the Light for All to See...
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
" Plaintiff Carolyn Bailey's August 28, 2006 proposed Dispute Resolution for
BAILEY V. PALMISANO ET AL
New Jersey Superior Court Docket # 05236-06 Law Division Essex County Civil Action
1. International Business Machines (IBM) will establish (within 6 months) a wide spread public awareness campaign that will last at least 5 years, directed at persons who have worked around industrial grade chemicals during the last 40 years.
BAILEY V. PALMISANO ET AL
New Jersey Superior Court Docket # 05236-06 Law Division Essex County Civil Action
1. International Business Machines (IBM) will establish (within 6 months) a wide spread public awareness campaign that will last at least 5 years, directed at persons who have worked around industrial grade chemicals during the last 40 years.
IBM's campaign would educate and encourage those individuals to take a cancer screening blood test or equivalent medical tests, if such are accurate.
In the event that the individual cannot afford the tests, IBM will offer some form of financial assistance/counseling to enable and encourage all affected individuals to take the medical tests.
This public awareness campaign could be patterned after the ongoing anti-smoking and responsible drinking campaigns of the tobacco and alcoholic beverages industries.
This public awareness campaign could be patterned after the ongoing anti-smoking and responsible drinking campaigns of the tobacco and alcoholic beverages industries.
IBM's campaign should include announcements in multiple languages, and should be disseminated in the press, over the airways, on billboards, on IBM's Internet site, and in all other places where it is likely to attract the attention of a broad spectrum of the general public and health care community.
Plaintiff has no objection to IBM seeking or establishing the cooperation and/or some financial participation of other employers, government agencies, etc. But the primary responsible for the coordination and fulfillment under this Resolution would be borne by IBM.
Plaintiff notes that the late Philip J. Bailey. Jr.'s multiple myeloma was detected by a blood test a year before there were apparent physical symptoms.
Plaintiff has no objection to IBM seeking or establishing the cooperation and/or some financial participation of other employers, government agencies, etc. But the primary responsible for the coordination and fulfillment under this Resolution would be borne by IBM.
Plaintiff notes that the late Philip J. Bailey. Jr.'s multiple myeloma was detected by a blood test a year before there were apparent physical symptoms.
That gave us our last "doctor/hospital free" year. Our extended family used that "extra" time to prep ourselves, as best we could, for the glum months that awaited us. The enactment of this Resolution would offer that same gift of time to countless others and their loved ones.
2. IBM will offer "in lieu of" settlement awards to those current and former IBM employees and their family members who qualify for such awards but for the existence of time bars or other statutes of limitation. In other words, those uncompensated employees or their family members who:
a. Worked at IBM's manufacturing sites in jobs that exposed them to industrial grade chemicals; and,
b. Suffered or experienced diseases and disabilities similar to those suffered or experienced by compensated current or former employees and/or their families,
will be eligible to the "in lieu of" awards.
IBM will make every effort to identify and contact such persons or their next of kin.
Plaintiff notes that the medical bills and pain and suffering are just as real for persons, like herself, who had no reason to connect the disease, disability, or death to on-the-job chemical exposure.
3. IBM will offer to Plaintiff and Infant Alyce Bailey a settlement that will sufficiently compensate them for their loss and injury.
4. The Defendant Attorneys and their respective law firms (individually or collectively) will offer to Plaintiff and Infant Alyce Bailey a settlement adequate to compensate them for any and all injuries and stresses they suffered because of the deeds and misdeeds of the Defendant Attorneys and their respective law firms. "
2. IBM will offer "in lieu of" settlement awards to those current and former IBM employees and their family members who qualify for such awards but for the existence of time bars or other statutes of limitation. In other words, those uncompensated employees or their family members who:
a. Worked at IBM's manufacturing sites in jobs that exposed them to industrial grade chemicals; and,
b. Suffered or experienced diseases and disabilities similar to those suffered or experienced by compensated current or former employees and/or their families,
will be eligible to the "in lieu of" awards.
IBM will make every effort to identify and contact such persons or their next of kin.
Plaintiff notes that the medical bills and pain and suffering are just as real for persons, like herself, who had no reason to connect the disease, disability, or death to on-the-job chemical exposure.
3. IBM will offer to Plaintiff and Infant Alyce Bailey a settlement that will sufficiently compensate them for their loss and injury.
4. The Defendant Attorneys and their respective law firms (individually or collectively) will offer to Plaintiff and Infant Alyce Bailey a settlement adequate to compensate them for any and all injuries and stresses they suffered because of the deeds and misdeeds of the Defendant Attorneys and their respective law firms. "
IBM
OPEN LETTER NO. 2 TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
This Article is Kind of Funny, almost Seems Like Someone is Complaining to Judge Judith Kay about IBM as if they don't know who has IBM Connections and I Believe IBM Work Experience. Anyway, Here is this Article wiht a Link to the Source Below... As we Explore the Connecting of Dots, the Affiliations and Players in the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Stolen Technology Holy Grail Heist. ... Who was Involved ?
Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with. So, if you want to read the plagiarized brief filed by IBM, you will have to wait until the hundreds of cases are unsealed.
BELOW IS A LIST OF THE CASE NAMES AND FILE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE ACCUMULATED TO DATE. THESE ARE ALL HOUSED AT THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IN WHITE PLAINS, NY.
SOME PLAINTIFFS ARE GROUPED UNDER ONE FILE NAME, FOR EXAMPLE "RUFFING".
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASJcaptcha
IT IS SOMEWHAT TEDIOUS, BUT A SEARCH OF "UNION CARBIDE" UNDER THE DEFENDANT LINK FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY ON THE ABOVE WEB SITE, WILL BRING UP ALL THE CASES, CURRENT AND CLOSED.
NOTE: THE INITIAL COMPLAINT IS USUALLY UNSEALED.
THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE GENERALLY THE RECORDS THAT IBM AND THE CHEMICAL SUPPLIER DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD SEALED BY THE COURT, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION.
(UC=UNION CARBIDE)
1 KELLEY DALEY V UC INDEX 014308-1997; INDEX 018755-1997
KELLY DALEY V. UC (DALEY II) INDEX 014206-1997
2. ROBERT KELLEHER V UC INDEX 004048-1997
ROBERT KELLEHER V SHIPLEY COMPANY (KELLEHER II) INDEX 015665-1997
3. RITA BASS V. UC INDEX 018275-97; INDEX 002550-1999
***4. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V HOECHST (RUFFING II) INDEX 015664-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES CLOSE TO 100+ PLAINTIFFS.
5. CAROLYN BAILEY V UC INDEX 002465/1998
6. ALYCE BAILEY V. UC INDEX 017951/2002
THIS CASE IS GROUPED WITH A FEW OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
***7. RYAN BURGER V. UC INDEX 015612-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES ABOUT 20 PLAINTIFFS.
8. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V. UC INDEX 4049-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES A NUMBER OF OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
9. MARGARET ABIDI V UC INDEX 014712-2001
10. DONALD MELE V. UC INDEX 004047-1997
11. CYNTHIA MOKRITSKI V. UC INDEX 012838-1997
12. JOHN CATALDO V. UC INDEX 013561-1998
13. JOHN WILLIAM EVANS V. UC INDEX 002549-1999
14. MARY ALICE CASTALLANO V. UC INDEX 003045-2001
15. NATHAN SMITH V. UC INDEX 005643-2002
16. AMBER ANN KARDAS V. UC INDEX 009011-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES 12 OR MORE PLAINTIFFS.
17. HEATHER KELLY V. UC INDEX 012300-1999
18. BONNIE BENNETT V. UC INDEX 018426-2001
19. CHRISTINA CORDARO V. UC INDEX 002548-1999
20. JAMES ABBATICCHIO V. UC INDEX 02550-1999
21. DIANE PAOLICELLA V. CANDACE CURTIS INDEX 7884-2004
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.
BUT CANDACE CURTIS IS THE CASE IBM SETTLED FOR "AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT" ON MARCH 3, 2004, JUST AS THE JURY SELECTION WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN.
22. KELLY DALEY V. EKC TECHNOLOGY INDEX 000146-1998
23. ALYSSA PFLEGING V. IBM INDEX 019667-2001
24. DAVID FREER V. UC INDEX 004171-2003
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL CERTAINLY GET YOU STARTED. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
INTERVIEWS OF THE VARIOUS NAMED NYS PLAINTIFFS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WILL VERIFY MY ACCOUNT OF THE DECEIT AND UNETHICAL PRESSURE EXERTED ON SICK PERSONS AND THIER FAMILIES TO BRING ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS.
IS THERE A GIDEON TO TAKE ON IBM ???
Part of a series of exposes on IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
Gideon feared death.
Does the main stream media fear the loss of current or potential advertising revenue, diminishing personal investment portfolios, or facing the wrath of Zeus ?
It takes big bucks to intervene in a lawsuit involving IBM. And it takes a whole lot of heart. Only a few organizations have the financial and legal resources to wage war with IBM. Are there any that have the courage and resolve ???
IBM ducked a heart rending trial on the East Coast USA by settling the Curtis v Union Carbide/IBM suit for an "undisclosed sum". Plaintiff and widow Carolyn Bailey maintains that IBM sought to avoid hundreds of similar trials by:
1. Extensive and unnecessary sealing of court records, and
2. Nudging the "opposing" attorneys into doing IBM's dirty work.
The Westchester County Supreme court's application of New York's current law regarding the sealing of court records has made it easy for IBM, Union Carbide, and the court to conSEAL "messy" cases from public scrutiny. Take a look at California's enlightened version --
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 243.1(d) SEALED RECORDS
(d) [Express factual findings required to seal records] The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
News organizations did a masterful job of promoting the public's interest in the recent Brooke Astor case. Judge Stackhouse's August 29, 2006 ruling in Matter of Astor 2006 NY Slip Op 51677(U) has shown that public interest in court proceedings overrides the preference of private parties. That includes such big wigs as IBM and the chemical suppliers who prefer to do business on the hush-hush !!!
It is far past time to pull the rug from under the secret shenanigans of IBM, Union Carbide and more than a dozen other international corporations who have hid their dirty laundry under court seals. "
Full Article and Source of Post Below
http://www.grayhatsbegone.com/spitzerletters.html
Who was married to Who, What politics played in all this and for the Purpose of this Serious of Posts... how is Ex-Supreme Court Judge Judith Kay connected to this whole mes besides the obvious of Being married to a Proskauer Rose Partner.
This is Good Stuff.. But What did Ex-Judge Super Judith
Do to Help .. hmmm.. I Bet NOTHING !!!
Do to Help .. hmmm.. I Bet NOTHING !!!
The Following is From an Awesome Website
I Just Discovered Today...
Time To Bring Light to the Dark...
$$$$$$
"OPEN LETTER NO. 2 TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
Chief Court Attorney James Garfein sent me an embarrassing response on your behalf. But his feeble effort proved my point better than anything else -- the New York State court system has been so manipulated by IBM that Mr. Garfein could not even identify the correct case. The IBM cancer and birth defect cases have been sealed, and then the Order sealing the sealing Order has been sealed. You've heard of double dealing and double dipping. Now you have double sealing !!!
The case involving the plagiarism of IBM's attorneys, Jones Day, and "opposing" attorneys Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, is the appeal of Bailey v. Union Carbide Index # 17951/2002 Westchester County (Second Department Appellate Division Docket # 2005-03440.)
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day Respondent brief. Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23. Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases. So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with.
IBM was so adept that even Chief Attorney Garfein could not find the file ! If that continues to be the case, I can send you a copy of the two briefs.
C' est la vie.
Someone needs to investigate and examine the process used in handling all of the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. IBM should not be able to silence the plaintiffs as it has. IBM should not be able to manipulate the court system as it has.
What say ye, Justice Kaye and Governor Spitzer ???
Carolyn Bailey
www.GrayHatsBeGone.com
cc: Select Media
Select Concerned Individuals
OPEN LETTER TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
IBM has made a mockery of the New York State court system !
IBM's lawyers Jones Day and Levy Phillips & Konigsberg submitted plagiarized briefs and relied upon court seals to cover their collusion. (See details in the expose reprinted below.) And if that were not bad enough, Levy Phillips yielded to the lure of easy contingency $$$$$$$ and functioned as IBM's hatchetmen. As a result, 100's of New York State plaintiffs have been denied informed and fairly negotiated and aboveboard settlements in the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. And all that was done with Westchester County Supreme Court conSEALment and stamp of approval !!! So far IBM has pulled this off because the plaintiffs were unethically pressured by Levy Phillips to sign chump-change releases that included an unconscionable clause requiring them to repay 25% of their few coins unless they remained silent.
Governor Spitzer, will your clean sweep include a broom for IBM and others who manipulate the current court rules to deprive ordinary people of their just deserves ???
" ... and who knows whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this ?" Esther 4:14
* * * * * * * * * *
PART OF EXPOSE SERIES
IBM WROTE THE BOOK ON PLAGIARIZED BRIEFS
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day (IBM's legal representative) Respondent brief in Bailey v. Union Carbide et al (Docket # 2005-03440 Second Appellate Division New York State). Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23.
I Just Discovered Today...
Time To Bring Light to the Dark...
$$$$$$
"OPEN LETTER NO. 2 TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
Chief Court Attorney James Garfein sent me an embarrassing response on your behalf. But his feeble effort proved my point better than anything else -- the New York State court system has been so manipulated by IBM that Mr. Garfein could not even identify the correct case. The IBM cancer and birth defect cases have been sealed, and then the Order sealing the sealing Order has been sealed. You've heard of double dealing and double dipping. Now you have double sealing !!!
The case involving the plagiarism of IBM's attorneys, Jones Day, and "opposing" attorneys Levy Phillips & Konigsberg, is the appeal of Bailey v. Union Carbide Index # 17951/2002 Westchester County (Second Department Appellate Division Docket # 2005-03440.)
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day Respondent brief. Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23. Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases. So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with.
IBM was so adept that even Chief Attorney Garfein could not find the file ! If that continues to be the case, I can send you a copy of the two briefs.
C' est la vie.
Someone needs to investigate and examine the process used in handling all of the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. IBM should not be able to silence the plaintiffs as it has. IBM should not be able to manipulate the court system as it has.
What say ye, Justice Kaye and Governor Spitzer ???
Carolyn Bailey
www.GrayHatsBeGone.com
cc: Select Media
Select Concerned Individuals
OPEN LETTER TO JUSTICE JUDITH KAYE & GOVERNOR ELIOT SPITZER
IBM has made a mockery of the New York State court system !
IBM's lawyers Jones Day and Levy Phillips & Konigsberg submitted plagiarized briefs and relied upon court seals to cover their collusion. (See details in the expose reprinted below.) And if that were not bad enough, Levy Phillips yielded to the lure of easy contingency $$$$$$$ and functioned as IBM's hatchetmen. As a result, 100's of New York State plaintiffs have been denied informed and fairly negotiated and aboveboard settlements in the IBM cancer and birth defect cases. And all that was done with Westchester County Supreme Court conSEALment and stamp of approval !!! So far IBM has pulled this off because the plaintiffs were unethically pressured by Levy Phillips to sign chump-change releases that included an unconscionable clause requiring them to repay 25% of their few coins unless they remained silent.
Governor Spitzer, will your clean sweep include a broom for IBM and others who manipulate the current court rules to deprive ordinary people of their just deserves ???
" ... and who knows whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this ?" Esther 4:14
* * * * * * * * * *
PART OF EXPOSE SERIES
IBM WROTE THE BOOK ON PLAGIARIZED BRIEFS
Look at page 16 of the Jones Day (IBM's legal representative) Respondent brief in Bailey v. Union Carbide et al (Docket # 2005-03440 Second Appellate Division New York State). Compare Jones Day's submission with the "opposition" Respondent brief of Levy Phillips & Konigsberg LLP on page 23.
Do you get a match ? Work forward and backwards from there. A side by side analysis of the two briefs will reveal numerous similarities in structure, organization, strategy, argument, and syllable for syllable overlaps. Even some footnotes bear resemblance and evidence of the copy and paste techniques of these "independently" prepared briefs. How do you define collusion ???
Well, there is just one little problem...
IBM, Union Carbide, and more than a dozen other global corporations were understandably "sensitive" about the public, government, media, or the investment community scrutinizing the sordid behind the scenes cover-up in hundreds of settlements in IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
So what did they do ? With the witting or unwitting assistance of the Supreme Court of Westchester County New York (White Plains), IBM and the other Defendants conveniently sealed everything they could get away with. So, if you want to read the plagiarized brief filed by IBM, you will have to wait until the hundreds of cases are unsealed.
BELOW IS A LIST OF THE CASE NAMES AND FILE NUMBERS THAT I HAVE ACCUMULATED TO DATE. THESE ARE ALL HOUSED AT THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE IN WHITE PLAINS, NY.
SOME PLAINTIFFS ARE GROUPED UNDER ONE FILE NAME, FOR EXAMPLE "RUFFING".
http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/FCASJcaptcha
IT IS SOMEWHAT TEDIOUS, BUT A SEARCH OF "UNION CARBIDE" UNDER THE DEFENDANT LINK FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY ON THE ABOVE WEB SITE, WILL BRING UP ALL THE CASES, CURRENT AND CLOSED.
NOTE: THE INITIAL COMPLAINT IS USUALLY UNSEALED.
THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE GENERALLY THE RECORDS THAT IBM AND THE CHEMICAL SUPPLIER DEFENDANTS HAVE HAD SEALED BY THE COURT, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION.
(UC=UNION CARBIDE)
1 KELLEY DALEY V UC INDEX 014308-1997; INDEX 018755-1997
KELLY DALEY V. UC (DALEY II) INDEX 014206-1997
2. ROBERT KELLEHER V UC INDEX 004048-1997
ROBERT KELLEHER V SHIPLEY COMPANY (KELLEHER II) INDEX 015665-1997
3. RITA BASS V. UC INDEX 018275-97; INDEX 002550-1999
***4. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V HOECHST (RUFFING II) INDEX 015664-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES CLOSE TO 100+ PLAINTIFFS.
5. CAROLYN BAILEY V UC INDEX 002465/1998
6. ALYCE BAILEY V. UC INDEX 017951/2002
THIS CASE IS GROUPED WITH A FEW OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
***7. RYAN BURGER V. UC INDEX 015612-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES ABOUT 20 PLAINTIFFS.
8. ZACHARY DAVID RUFFING V. UC INDEX 4049-1997
THIS CASE INCLUDES A NUMBER OF OTHER PLAINTIFFS.
9. MARGARET ABIDI V UC INDEX 014712-2001
10. DONALD MELE V. UC INDEX 004047-1997
11. CYNTHIA MOKRITSKI V. UC INDEX 012838-1997
12. JOHN CATALDO V. UC INDEX 013561-1998
13. JOHN WILLIAM EVANS V. UC INDEX 002549-1999
14. MARY ALICE CASTALLANO V. UC INDEX 003045-2001
15. NATHAN SMITH V. UC INDEX 005643-2002
16. AMBER ANN KARDAS V. UC INDEX 009011-2000
THIS CASE INCLUDES 12 OR MORE PLAINTIFFS.
17. HEATHER KELLY V. UC INDEX 012300-1999
18. BONNIE BENNETT V. UC INDEX 018426-2001
19. CHRISTINA CORDARO V. UC INDEX 002548-1999
20. JAMES ABBATICCHIO V. UC INDEX 02550-1999
21. DIANE PAOLICELLA V. CANDACE CURTIS INDEX 7884-2004
I AM NOT SURE WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT.
BUT CANDACE CURTIS IS THE CASE IBM SETTLED FOR "AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT" ON MARCH 3, 2004, JUST AS THE JURY SELECTION WAS ABOUT TO BEGIN.
22. KELLY DALEY V. EKC TECHNOLOGY INDEX 000146-1998
23. ALYSSA PFLEGING V. IBM INDEX 019667-2001
24. DAVID FREER V. UC INDEX 004171-2003
THE ABOVE INFORMATION WILL CERTAINLY GET YOU STARTED. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
INTERVIEWS OF THE VARIOUS NAMED NYS PLAINTIFFS OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES WILL VERIFY MY ACCOUNT OF THE DECEIT AND UNETHICAL PRESSURE EXERTED ON SICK PERSONS AND THIER FAMILIES TO BRING ABOUT THE SETTLEMENTS.
IS THERE A GIDEON TO TAKE ON IBM ???
Part of a series of exposes on IBM's cancer and birth defect cases.
Gideon feared death.
Does the main stream media fear the loss of current or potential advertising revenue, diminishing personal investment portfolios, or facing the wrath of Zeus ?
It takes big bucks to intervene in a lawsuit involving IBM. And it takes a whole lot of heart. Only a few organizations have the financial and legal resources to wage war with IBM. Are there any that have the courage and resolve ???
IBM ducked a heart rending trial on the East Coast USA by settling the Curtis v Union Carbide/IBM suit for an "undisclosed sum". Plaintiff and widow Carolyn Bailey maintains that IBM sought to avoid hundreds of similar trials by:
1. Extensive and unnecessary sealing of court records, and
2. Nudging the "opposing" attorneys into doing IBM's dirty work.
The Westchester County Supreme court's application of New York's current law regarding the sealing of court records has made it easy for IBM, Union Carbide, and the court to conSEAL "messy" cases from public scrutiny. Take a look at California's enlightened version --
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 243.1(d) SEALED RECORDS
(d) [Express factual findings required to seal records] The court may order that a record be filed under seal only if it expressly finds facts that establish:
(1) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the record is not sealed;
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
News organizations did a masterful job of promoting the public's interest in the recent Brooke Astor case. Judge Stackhouse's August 29, 2006 ruling in Matter of Astor 2006 NY Slip Op 51677(U) has shown that public interest in court proceedings overrides the preference of private parties. That includes such big wigs as IBM and the chemical suppliers who prefer to do business on the hush-hush !!!
It is far past time to pull the rug from under the secret shenanigans of IBM, Union Carbide and more than a dozen other international corporations who have hid their dirty laundry under court seals. "
Full Article and Source of Post Below
http://www.grayhatsbegone.com/spitzerletters.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)