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
Showing posts with label Web Archives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Web Archives. Show all posts
Friday, January 1, 2010
Sunday, December 27, 2009
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)