Howard L. Shapiro - Counsel to the Inspector General. Dan Petrole - Peter Sivere Whistleblower Smackdown

SEC Investigators - OSHA Investigators - SEC OIG Report of Investigation - Industry Whistleblower - SEC Fraud and Failing the Public.

Howard L. Shapiro - Counsel to the Inspector General
Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole

Below is What Seems to Me Like a Whistleblower Smackdown, as the SEC Fails Over and Over to Protect Whistleblower, Consumers, Shareholders and Faild to Investigate Fraud. Is there No Accountability, Transparency or Rights on any Level?

***********

In a message dated 2/17/2010 7:55:05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, shapiro.howard@oig.dol.gov writes:

Mr. Sivere:

The Deputy Inspector General, Dan Petrole, has asked me to respond to your recent e-mail to him, in which you state:

In light of the new public interest in this matter I would like for you to re-open this investigation. Please see the attached documentation from Mr. Heddell (signed by you on his behalf) and his reasoning for not re-opening this investigation.

Specifically, Mr. Heddell stated "our review of the SEC OIG Report of Investigation does not provide sufficient basis to revisit this determination."

Why didn't OSHA ever produce a final determination in this investigation? Did OSHA ever interview George Demos or speak directly with the SEC in regard to his allegations of me?

Upon review of the linked web pages (in your e-mail), it appears that the new public interest in this matter primarily relates to actions taken (or not taken) within the SEC, and does not provide a sufficient basis or justification for the DOL OIG to re-visit its previous determination regarding the opening of an investigation with respect to actions taken by OSHA employees.

Howard L. Shapiro
Counsel to the Inspector General "

************

From: PSivere@aol.com [mailto:PSivere@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:10 AM
To: Shapiro, Howard - OIG
Cc: Petrole, Daniel - OIG
Subject: Re: Request to OIG

Dear Mr. Shapiro,

Nothing in the attached Memorandum of Understating between the SEC and DOL, entered into July 29, 2008 contain any restrictions on the DOL.

Has Mr. Petrole made any attempt to discuss this matter with the SEC OIG as outlined in the MOU? The fact that my confidential information was leaked during an OSHA investigation and the DOL OIG has no interest in investigating why OSHA investigators did not or will not investigate the leak is troubling.

At a minimum the OSHA investigators should have contacted the SEC investigators to compare "facts." The SEC OIG was concerned enough to investigate their own, why won't the DOL OIG do the same? What is the downside for DOL to produce a similar report as the SEC OIG did?

Thank You,
Peter ""

************

Message from Dan Petrole to Howard L. Shapiro

"In a message dated 3/4/2010 3:16:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.gov writes:

Howard,

I assume that you are monitoring these e-mails. I also realize that Mr. Sivere agreed to a settlement regarding his issue. Just want to make sure you are comfortable that nothing comes back to bite us.

Dan"

************

"From: PSivere@aol.comTo: Petrole.Daniel@oig.dol.govCC: shapiro.howard@oig.dol.govSent: 3/11/2010 5:41:03 A.M. Eastern Standard TimeSubj: Re: Request to OIG

Mr. Petrole,

Leaving the settlement aside for a moment. Congress charges your agency with protecting the workers of this country. Specifically, it charges you to ensure that certain programs are administered and carried out without interference or political agendas.

Sadly, your comment below illustrates why the American people are fed up. You are in Washington to serve the people of this country. It's a sad state of affairs when the agency charged with protecting the workers of this country believe we are better protected when civil servants, like yourself, put politics before your actual mandate.

This is not a legal issue. This is a systematic breakdown of your agency and all you focus on is CYA. I purposely let your e-mail sit in my in box for the past week with the hopes of establishing some dialogue with you and your agency. Sadly, it did not happen.

Thank You,
Peter Sivere "

Posted here by
Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Marc S. Dreier SEC Investigation and Conviction - Excerpts from Eliot Bernsteins SEC Complaint.

"" The SEC Indictment and Conviction of Marc S. Dreier as it relates to Proskauer, comes from the connection to Patent Attorney Raymond A. Joao.

Joao initially introduced to Iviewit as a Proskauer partner by Wheeler, along with Rubenstein, when they were actually with Meltzer at that time.

Once investors in Iviewit learned Rubenstein and Joao were not with Proskauer as represented, Proskauer partner Christopher C. Wheeler (“Wheeler”) claimed they were transferring to Proskauer shortly.

Rubenstein then transferred almost overnight and Joao was to follow after he finished work at Meltzer but since he was actually writing the patent applications under Rubenstein’s direction for Iviewit, Iviewit had to take an additional retainer to Proskauer’s with Meltzer until Joao transferred.

However, Joao never transferred to Proskauer Rose and during his first year of work for Iviewit, it was discovered that Joao allegedly was not filing timely and correct patent applications and patenting inventions in his own name.

Joao now under ongoing investigation at the US Patent Office and FBI, ordered for by the First Dept and yet to be completed and more. Wheeler then claimed that Proskauer was beginning an investigation of Joao, ironically, and ignoring the conflicts this presented, as Joao was Proskauer, Wheeler and Rubenstein’s referral.

Christopher Wheeler then suggested his good friend William Dick (“Dick”) of Foley to replace Joao for filing the patents and reviewing Joao’s work, continuing under Rubenstein’s oversight, as described in the Wachovia Private Placement already exhibited herein.

What Christopher Wheeler failed to disclose to Iviewit is that Dick had been involved immediately prior to being retained by Iviewit, with both Wheeler and another Proskauer/Wheeler referral to Iviewit, Brian G. Utley, formerly employed by IBM and working with Dick, Utley then becoming President of Iviewit, in another allegedly failed Intellectual Property theft.

The prior attempted Intellectual Property heist was against another Florida businessperson, Philanthropist Monte Friedkin of Diamond Turf Equipment Co. and whereby all those addressed herein should take note of the Prior History of these alleged patent thieves, clearly indicating that this is an organized and repeated crime against inventors.

The SEC should note that Wheeler presented a falsified resume for his friend Utley to Iviewit that not only failed to disclose the attempted theft but also failed to disclose, and in fact materially falsified Utley’s resume concealing the facts by claiming Utley left the company Diamond Turf a success due to his innovations.

Factually, the attempted IP theft, according to Friedkin, led to the firing of Utley by Friedkin and Friedkin’s immediately closing the business and taking a multimillion-dollar loss directly due to the scheme perpetrated by Utley, Dick and Wheeler. Dick also failed to disclose this fact when joining Iviewit.

In both Utley and Wheeler’s depositions, already exhibited herein, both Utley and Wheeler contradict each other’s statements when confronted with the Friedkin information and Dick in his Virginia Bar Response to a complaint filed against him further contradicts both Wheeler and Utley regarding the Friedkin events. Supplementary evidence confirming these claims can be found on the Iviewit homepage at www.iviewit.tv .

When Dick replaced Joao, the press reported that Joao claimed he now had 90+ patents in his own name, many allegedly directly lifted from Iviewit.

Joao then joined the Marc S. Dreier law firm of Dreier & Baritz. This new information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Dreier Ponzi Scheme in light of this new evidence, and in fact, the monies of the Dreier Ponzi allegedly directly relate to royalties from sales and licensing of Joao’s stolen Intellectual Properties.

The Dreier Ponzi is alleged to be another money-laundering scheme concocted by the Defendants in my Federal RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit.

The SEC should also cease distribution of assets in the Dreier Ponzi, especially where the Trustee appears conflicted with Proskauer and again the court actions may be further attempts by these all too clever law firms to abscond with funds in further illegal legal actions and Fraud on the Court. ""

Where is the SEC and Mary Schapiro In All This ?

Click Here for Full SEC Complaint by Iviewit Technologies, Eliot I. Bernstein.

posted here by
investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox

Was Mary Shapiro - SEC Chairman a KNOWN Risk to Investors and Shareholders - What in Mary Shapiro's past SHOULD have been a Red Flag?

Securities and Exchange Commission - News Archives

"" [The Financial Meltdown]

President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Mary Schapiro as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission may go down as his worst appointment.

Schapiro, in her capacity as President of NASD Regulation and later CEO of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), was directly responsible for ensuring that Bernie Madoff's firm, BLM Securities, obeyed federal securities laws.

Schapiro in her capacity as Commissioner and acting-Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and later as President of NASD Regulation, has covered up more violations of federal securities law than Madoff has violated.

And yes, Bernie Madoff pulled off his scam when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation and Chairperson of FINRA, which regulates NASD!

Schapiro never investigated Madoff, probably because Madoff was a powerful individual, a former Chairman of NASD.

I’m privy to this information because I was a trader on Wall Street many years ago. Beginning in 1991 I had written to Steven Lister, Senior Vice President of Compliance at the American Stock Exchange (AMEX).

I requested that, as a former member of the American Stock Exchange, I be granted access to my records.

The American Stock Exchange never replied.

Whenever I saw Lister, I asked him when he would grant me access to my records, Lister would simply state: "No."

Little background. Members of the board of AMEX had told other members that I had been evicted from AMEX for refusing to pass through a metal detector; in reality I had exposed the fact that another member of the Board had been apprehended with an unregistered pistol after he went through metal detectors at AMEX. I wanted to see whether the false information about me was in my AMEX files.

On July 26, 1993, I wrote to Mary Schapiro and requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission order the American Stock Exchange to permit me access to my files after Lister again refused to grant me access to my records. Of course this is a violation of federal securities laws, but that did not matter to Schapiro.

And SEC attorney, GayLa D. Sessoms, in a letter dated August 23, 1993 claimed "the Commission does not have the authority to compel the AMEX to produce records to you."

Schapiro knew that AMEX was a hotbed of illegal activity by the Italian Mafia-but Schapiro always looked to greener pastures.

I did not expect this lack of support from Schapiro. After all, I executed orders for Frost & Sullivan, a trading firm, on the floor of the AMEX.

When the inside trading scandal in Motel 6 was exposed –a foreign company was planning to bid on Motel 6, which was a nationwide chain of budget motels, but the information leaked and Frost & Sullivan traded illegally on it— I was investigated by the SEC.

I was the only individual who was connected to the three firms involved in this insider trading scandal that did not trade on Motel 6 insider information and thereby profit illegally. I was also the only individual who possessed knowledge of the extent of the insider trading in Motel 6 who was not subpoenaed by the SEC.

Why? Because according to Joseph Greenwald, a trader with another firm, who pleaded guilty to insider trading in Motel 6, James Breeden, at the time Chairman of the SEC, and Mary Schapiro, who was then an SEC Commissioner, had ordered the SEC to limit the scope of the investigation. The intent was to protect senior members of the AMEX and Bear Stearns who had knowledge of the Motel 6 insider information.

On September 13, 1993 I met with Assistant United States Attorney Frances Fragos (who later, as Frances Fragos-Townsend was to become George W. Bush’s Homeland Security adviser) at 1 Saint Andrew Plaza, in Manhattan, to discuss the Italian Mafia's penetration of the AMEX; the insider trading scandal in Motel 6; payoffs to AMEX Compliance Attorneys by the Italian Mafia; payoffs by the Italian Mafia to members of the Board of the American Stock Exchange; the theft of $500,000 by a vice president of the AMEX; the stock fraud at a company named PNF; involvement of members of the Board of the AMEX in the stock fraud at PNF; and, a host of other crimes.

I had first approached the FBI to expose these crimes and the agency then arranged for me to meet with Frances Fragos.

(When I showed Fragos the letter from Sessoms, she told me that Sessoms had lied and that in fact the SEC had the authority to order the AMEX to grant me access to my records.

I was convinced that the SEC and AMEX knew that once I obtained my records, I could have forced investigations that would have exposed other major crimes; yet I needed my records as a launching point).

Of course the SEC had powers over the AMEX.

For example, in 1977 the AMEX gave mild disciplinary sanctions against about 20 members for posting fictitious options trades.

The SEC overruled the AMEX disciplinary actions and suspended the 20 or so members of the AMEX involved in this fraud, including future members of the Board of the AMEX, such as William Silver, Louis Miceli, and Robert VanCaneghan..

In 1995 when Schapiro was a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a huge illegal trading scandal erupted at the AMEX.

Pat Schettino, a rogue trader and managing director of Spear Leeds and Kellogg, falsified trades; marked options positions; produced fictitious trading records; stole money from AMEX members; violated the net capital rule (the type of offense for which Ivan Boesky later went to prison); and, even entered trades at fictitious prices.

When I wrote numerous letters to the SEC and members of the Board of the AMEX about Schettino's illegal trading, he hired Eric Levine, an attorney at Proskauer Rose and sued me for defamation. The SEC did nothing; even after I had written to the SEC, including Schapiro, about Schettino's massive illegal trading.

By taking no action, the SEC countenanced Schettino's actions against me. The AMEX delayed investigating Schettino for years. Two attorneys for the AMEX, Steven Lister and Phil Axelrod, who were supposed to be investigating Schettino even taunted me about Schettino's defamation lawsuit and told me that they hoped that I would lose.

In 1998 NASD purchased the American Stock Exchange. At the time Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, which was technically overseeing AMEX regulation.

Then in 1999 when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, major violations of federal securities laws at the AMEX were exposed in a seminal article, "Scandal On Wall Street," on the front page of Business Week and it was noted that Schettino had not been disciplined four years after he had violated federal securities laws. Schettino subsequently dropped his lawsuit against me.

Schapiro did nothing, but covered up these crimes. And what has all this have to do with Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi King? Madoff, like Schettino, had also produced fictitious trading records; falsified trades; and. stolen money.

Where was Schapiro, the nominal overseer of Madoff?

Now she is to become Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission?

(Schapiro did not return a phone message seeking comment; her aide said she was meeting with President Elect Obama in Chicago). ""

Source of Post
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=5221

Question: Mary Shapiro KNOWS of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. and is very aware according to what I have read.. about the implications to Shareholders that will be Billions upon Billions per Company in my Opinion. So when the SEC and Mary Shapiro Says she did not have prior Knowledge on the iViewit Scandal and all the Major Law Firms and Tech Companies involved.. ...

You Savvy Internet Investigators
will KNOW that she most Certainly DID...

How Come our Great Country is paying no attention to what seems in the above article to be decades of indescretions leading to Billions upon Billions and the Shareholders, Investors Seem to be the Ones to Take the Heat.. and Not Only is Mary Shapiro NEVER held Accountable, She is Constantly put back into some authoritative position that allows for the Same Over Looking of Tips - Not Looking into Facts and Creating or Shall I say ALLOWING huges Liabilities to Innocent Investors and Shareholders... ???

posted By
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
.... Got a Tip .. Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Investigative Blogger

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

Eliot I. Bernstein - Intel Corporation - SEC Enforcement - Mary Shapiro - SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION

More Web Archives I have Found on "Eliot I. Bernstein - Intel Corporation" "Iviewit and Intel"

"From: Eliot I. Bernstein

Wednesday, March 25, 2009
SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro
SEC Office of Chief Accountant
SEC Office of International Affairs
SEC Office of International Enforcement Assistance
SEC Division of Enforcement

SEC Office of Internet Enforcement
SEC Division of Corporate Finance

SEC Division of Corporate Finance Chief Accountant's Office ( CF-OCA )
Federal Bureau of Investigation – White Collar Crime Unit

Complaint by Letter:
SEC Complaint Center
100 F Street NE,
Washington, D.C. 20549-0213
Complaint by Telefax: 703-813-6965
Complaint by Email: enforcement@sec.gov
Re: Complaint - Regarding Intel Corporation and Possible Trillion Dollar
Fraud on Intel Shareholders and Others
Intel Corporate Mailing Address
2200 Mission College Blvd.
Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549
Intel Phone Numbers as of March 23, 2009:
(408) 765-8080 MAIN NUMBER (800) 321-
4044 FAX: (408) 765-9904


TO: SEC Chairperson Mary Shapiro;
SEC Office of Chief Accountant; Head of SEC
Office's of International Affairs,
SEC International Enforcement Assistance, SEC
Division of Enforcement, SEC Office of Internet Enforcement, SEC Division of
Corporate Finance, SEC Division of Corporate Finance Office of Chief Accountant, FBI

White Collar Crime Division and Any and All Compliance
Division Heads and Related Offices:

I, Eliot Bernstein, as the Original Owner and Inventor of key "backbone technologies" for video and imaging as further described herein, am filing this formal complaint against Intel Corporation ( Intel ) with United States headquarters located at 2200 Mission College Blvd, Santa Clara, Ca, 95054-1459, and bring to your attention ongoing investigations involving multiple federal offices around the country as well as International investigations pertinent in this matter.

Intel is a primary wrongdoer as a named defendant in a presently pending Trillion
Dollar international RICO conspiracy lawsuit1 involving the theft and fraud of my
Intellectual Property rights as further set out herein. In addition to liabilities claimed in
this lawsuit, are separate direct primary liabilities and obligations from signed agreements
including Non Disclosure’s, Strategic Partner Agreements and Licensing Agreements.

Further, on information and belief Intel corporate management including at least the
President, Paul S. Otellini and corporate counsel Bruce D. Sewell, and Stephen R.
Rodgers are also involved in an ongoing and undisclosed massive international Fraud
against the Intel shareholders and investors.

Upon information and belief, the frauds include but are not limited to the failure
to disclose both the lawsuit and the Intellectual Property infringements in direct violation
of various SEC laws and rules including but not limited to FASB No. 5 requirements for
disclosing liabilities and more.

Merely one claim in this lawsuit involves the attempted Murder upon my family by an Iraqi style car bombing that blew up three vehicles in addition to mine during the early phases of the high stakes corporate theft and fraud of my Intellectual Property rights.

Notably, federal Judge Shira Scheindlin referred to this as a case involving Murder that has also been marked as legally “related” by Scheindlin to an ongoing Federal Whistleblower case2.

summary, dating back to 1998-1999 at the time the inventions were discovered,
I had Signed Non Disclosure Agreements, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing
Arrangements, including Agreements that were at the time in legal review for R3D
relating to the USE of my proprietary rights in inventions which were hailed as the "Holy
Grail" of the internet.

The technologies were deemed the “Holy Grail” by multiple experts under signed NDA’s as it permitted full screen full frame rate video previously thought impossible and zoom and pan imaging technologies which removed pixel distortion.

The stolen technologies are now commonly found on virtually all digital imaging and video hardware and software. These signed agreements were amongst hundreds of signed agreements with many Fortune 1000 Companies.

After signing Agreements with Real 3D, Inc. ( R3D ), a company whose ownership was composed of Lockheed Martin ( 70% ), Intel ( 20% ) and Silicon Graphics Inc. ( 10% ), Intel later took over complete ownership of R3D of Orlando Florida.

In the subsequent months thereafter, a series of critical events occurred including
but not limited to the discovery of fraudulent patent applications and the discovery of
fraudulent corporations, the corporate frauds were discovered by Arthur Andersen during
an audit for the largest investor in the companies Crossbow Ventures of W. Palm Beach
Florida.

Nearly two-thirds of the Crossbow funds were secured through SBIC loans from
the Small Business Administration making the SBA the largest investor in the
technologies and companies.

On information and belief, the SBA Inspector General’s office is conducting an ongoing investigation into these and other matters please refer to the SBA Inspector General’s office to obtain relevant information.

As you will see by the letter and petition to the 44th US President, Barack Hussein
Obama II, found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090213%20FINAL%20SIGNED%20LETTER%20OBAMA%20TO%20ENJOIN%20US%20ATTORNEY%20FINGERED%20ORIGINAL%20MAIL%20l.pdf

and also sent to US Attorney General Eric Holder, I was then directed by Harry I. Moatz, Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office, Office of Enrollment and
Discipline to file charges with the Commissioner of Patents claiming Fraud Upon the
USPTO, my companies and myself.

This led to the Suspension of certain Intellectual Properties while investigations remain ongoing; please refer to Moatz and the Commissioner of Patents office to obtain relevant information. In addition, Moatz directed me to seek Congressional Legislation to obtain an Act of Congress to correct the falsified Oaths on my Intellectual Properties submitted by my former legal counsel at the law firms of Meltzer, Lippe, Goldstein & Schlissel, Foley & Lardner and Proskauer Rose.

An Act of Congress is necessary to make the changes in inventors, owners and assignees
that are fraudulent, for which we have sought aid from The Honorable Senator Dianne
Feinstein who remains working through her offices regarding such.



These backbone technologies which were stolen in 1998-1999 have since been
used throughout the United States and across the globe throughout the entire value chain
of content creation and distribution of video and images for both software and hardware
in the transmission of Digital Video and Imaging across all spectrums, including, the
Internet, Television, DVD, HD DVD, Micro Processing Chips, as well as, a mass of
applications for Defense, Flight & Space Simulation, including on the Hubble Space
Telescope (providing a deeper view into time) and on virtually all Medical Imaging
Devices, and more. In fact, members of R3D and Intel were some of the earliest
champions of the value of the technologies claiming they were “Priceless” and were
valued in the hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars over the life of the Intellectual
Properties, having transformed the world of digital imaging and video that now are
considered part of daily life.
Intel was one of the earliest players in this scheme and has continued to not only
defraud myself and the other rightful owners of the technologies, including Ellen
DeGeneres and Alanis Morissette, but has simultaneously defrauded the Intel's
shareholders and investors for years by failing to report and disclose the liabilities with
full knowledge of their binding obligations regarding the technologies. These frauds and
failures by the Intel management team have continued despite multiple communications
over several years that have gone directly to the President of Intel, Mr. Paul S. Otellini
and their Corporate Counsel Mr. Bruce D. Sewell and Steven R. Rodgers and continue
despite the knowledge of the signed Agreements.
At this time, however, as noted in my Feb. 2009 letter to the Office of the US
President Barack Hussein Obama II and the US Attorney General Eric Holder, I wish to
bring to your direct attention the identities of several federal offices already involved in
this ongoing national and international Intellectual Properties theft and fraud.
Investigations that will aid and facilitate the SEC with background information for the
proper performance of complete investigations by the SEC allowing for information
sharing with these agencies, some of the key offices are as follows:
1. Glenn A. Fine, Office of Inspector General of the US Department of Justice
2. Harry Moatz, Director, OED of the USPTO
3. H. Marshall Jarrett, Office of Professional Responsibility of the FBI
4. A complete list of Federal, State & International Actions can be found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/INVESTIGATIONS%20MASTER.htm.
Please note that I provide the SEC and the various Office and Division heads this
background solely as a starting point for full and proper investigations of Intel and related
parties in this matter and that I remain personally available to provide further information
as necessary. It should be noted that a wealth of the history of these matters is available


at my website www.iviewit.tv including links to the current federal complaint filed in the US
Court of Appeals 2nd Circ., the complaint filed with the US District Court – Southern
District of New York, links to the hundreds of signed NDAs, Strategic Alliance
Agreements, License Agreements and more.
It should be further noted that Intel failed to even Disclose the liabilities, even as a
Footnote, in their Annual Reports signed by Ernst & Young for both calendar years 1999
thru 2007 despite the fact that they had engaged in specific communications and / or
received specific communications from 1999-2009 regarding the outstanding obligations
and liabilities associated with Intel's improper use and infringement of my Intellectual
Property rights. See attached emails of 2006-2009 and Intel Annual Statements of 2006-
2007.
Not only did Intel later acquire in whole the R3D company which was intimately
involved in the early phases of this matter and under signed agreements with my
company, but specific members of Intel/ R3D staff were present during key meetings in
the early phases and otherwise involved in these matters including but not limited to,
Lawrence Palley (Director of Business Development @ Intel), Gerald W. Stanley
(Chairman of the Board, President & Chief Executive Officer @ R3D), David Bolton
(Corporate Counsel @ R3D & Lockheed Martin), Steven A. Behrens (Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer @ R3D), Rosalie Bibona (Program Manager @ R3D), Timothy
P. Connolly (Director, Engineering @ R3D), Richard Gentner (Director of Scalable
Graphics Systems @ R3D), Connie Martin (Director, Software Development @ R3D),
Diane H. Sabol (Director and Corporate Controller Finance & Administration @ R3D),
Rob Kyanko (Intel), Michael Silver (@ ?), Ryan Huisman (@ R3D), Matt Johannsen (@
R3D), Hassan Miah (@ Intel), Dennis Goo (Manager, Digital Home Content for the
Americas @ Intel), Rajeev Kapur (Chief of Staff, Enterprise Product Group @ Intel) and
Kostas Katsohirakis (Business Development Manager @ Intel).
Moreover, as expressly indicated to Intel, the suit presently in litigation in the US
Second Circuit Court of Appeals is but one of many forums where these matters may be
pursued such as other federal courts within the United States and a variety of forums
abroad as well.

As the Intellectual Property crimes are investigated and the IP removed from its current Suspension status3 by the USPTO of course, those claims will be further pursued as Intel is well aware of.

Thus, it is submitted that part of this review and investigation by the SEC should likely involve prior transactions such as the purchase and sale of R3D and related transactions.

Several of the following links will also provide additional background
information:


http://exposecorruptcourts.blogspot.com/2007/08/justice-dept-widens-patentgate-probe.html


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





Copies of this Was also Sent to


Ernst & Young – Accountancy for Intel
The Honorable John Conyers Jr. ~ Chairman, House Judiciary Committee

The Honorable Glenn Fine ~
Inspector General, United States Department of
Justice
John J. Doll ~ Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office - Deputy Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office

The Honorable Harry I. Moatz ~ Director, Office of Enrollment & Discipline,
United States Patent & Trademark Office

Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. ~ Attorney General, United States

The Honorable United States Senator Dianne Feinstein
Andrew Cuomo ~ Attorney General of New York State, State of New York
Office of the Attorney General
Charlie Crist, Governor, State of Florida

CNN; MSNBC; FOX; NY TIMES; Washington Post; LA Times; Miami Herald;



SEC COMPLAINT INTEL CORPORATION

Source of This Post and Full Document
http://iviewit.tv/press/press4.pdf
SEC
So the SEC Knew, Does the Shareholder Know.. even Today do the Intel Shareholder know this Stuff or does Intel CEO Paul S. Otellini plan to keep it a secret until Intel can sock away more of the money?
SEC