"Andrew Cuomo Follows In Eliot Spitzer’s Footprints In Pursuit of “The Ring” and Governorship Ignoring The Law And Rules To Amass A 16 Million Dollar Treasury.
Can Andrew Cuomo follow Eliot Spitzer’s example pursuing the Governorship and fund his campaign treasury with payments from opposing attorneys with actions against NY State?.
For_Immediate_Release:
Terence Finnan reports on his blog CuomoTARP.blogspot.com , that one can follow Cuomo’s and Spitzer’s Money Trails pursuing for themselves “The Ring,” specifically the Governorship and, ultimately, the Presidency. Mr. Finnan reports of the joy in London over Spitzer’s role in taking money out of the NY Financial Markets, ” History will come to view him (Spitzer) as one of the most damaging figures in the history of the state. It is difficult to imagine that he will, as governor, do anything to counter the damage he has already done to American business, or even that he would wish to do so. ”Mr. Finnan asks, “Is Cuomo like Spitzer, a Gollum, obsessed with the ‘Ring,’ and becoming Governor and our first Italian president?” Mr. Finnan further asks, ” Do the People of NY benefit when Cuomo shakes down lawyers for his campaign treasury, instead of Spitzer shaking down Wall Street? What benefit to the People of NY accrues when Cuomo builds a 16 million dollar campaign fund with payoffs by lawyers with cases against NY State. In the end, weren’t the payoffs made to Cuomo’s treasury only passed on as an expense of the People of NY whose interests were compromised?”Following the advice in Matthew 6:24 “No man can serve two masters,” Mr. Finnan asks whether Andrew Cuomo can serve as the People’s attorney and at the same time collect payments from opposing lawyers?Mr. Finnan quotes the applicable Disciplinary Rule DR 5-101 [1200.20] concerning “Conflicts of Interest” and asks whether Andrew Cuomo obtained permission from the People of NY to take money from opposing attorneys?Finally, Mr. Finnan asks three questions of Andrew Cuomo:1. Did you obtain the consent of the People after full disclosure of the implications before you took the money for your own personal campaign interests?2. A special prosecutor?3. Is your defense, Spitzer did it first?
Earlier posts had asked Andrew Cuomo to support making “Official Misconduct” a felony, instead of a misdemeanor and presented criminal complaints to facilitate Andrew Cuomo to prosecute several State Judges and Senators for criminal conduct..
####
For more information:Keywords: Andrew Cuomo,Eliot Spitzer,Cuomo Corruption
Tags: Andrew Cuomo, christine c. anderson, eliot bernstein, Eliot Spitzer, eric holder, First Department, first department disciplinary, JUDITH KAYE, mario cuomo, ny senate judiciary committee, proskauer, SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, thomas cahill ""
Source of Post
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=295
Showing posts with label Judge Shira Scheindlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Shira Scheindlin. Show all posts
Monday, April 12, 2010
Friday, April 9, 2010
New York OCFS denied thousands accused of child abuse the chance to clear their name
"" By John O’Brien / The Post-Standard
March 22, 2010, 6:00AM
Syracuse, NY – The State Office of Children and Family Services in 2004 had a backlog of requests for hearings from people accused of mistreating children.
Three women had recently sued the agency over the delays that were costing them jobs working with kids because they couldn’t get their names cleared.
The agency had a solution to the thousands of pending written requests that would come under scrutiny by the lawsuit, according to sworn testimony from state workers: Shred.
For a month in 2004, the workers were under orders to take carts of the requests for name-clearing hearings and shred them after hours in their Albany offices, according to the testimony. They shredded about a thousand a day for a month, one OCFS worker testified.
The revelation came in a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit last month that could affect 25,000 people across the state who are listed in a statewide database as reported child abusers. Under the settlement, anyone who requested a hearing on child abuse or maltreatment charges but never got it regained the right to the hearing.
Employers such as day care centers check the database to see if a job applicant was ever accused of child abuse. Those accused could request a hearing with OCFS to clear their names. More than half of those challenges result in the accused person being cleared, according to Thomas Hoffman, a lawyer for the three women who sued the state over the lengthy delays.
Those women claimed they lost opportunities for jobs working with children because the state took up to two years to give them a name-clearing hearing. By then, the potential employer had filled the job opening.
Four years after the suit was filed, a whistleblower who works for OCFS called Hoffman, he said.
She told him how the agency was getting rid of the written requests for hearings, then marking the case “waived” or “withdrawn” on the database, court papers said.
The state never told the accused. To the inquiring employer, it would appear that the person had given up on their request for a hearing, and the child abuse accusation stood.
The backlog of hearing requests was much longer than two years — some requests had been sitting around for seven years, court papers said.
The whistleblower came forward in February 2009.
Hoffman then took testimony of 18 or 19 OCFS workers about the handling of the requests for hearings, he said.
In some cases, workers called the prospective employers with whom the accused person had applied for a job, according to the workers’ testimony.
If the employer was no longer interested, the state workers were told to mark the file “waived,” according to the testimony of six OCFS workers.
The accused person was never notified in those cases.
The written requests were shredded or thrown in the garbage,
at least three of the workers testified.
If the whistleblower hadn’t come forward about the shredded cases, Hoffman would never have known the extent of the backlog, he said.
Cathy Dufty, a clerical worker in the office, testified that Supervisor David Peters ordered her to gather a bunch of temp workers and start shredding.
“I would go down to his office about 3:30 and I would take the cart back, and it would be, ‘These are to be shredded, and these over here are to be refiled,’” Dufty testified last year.
Peters was then the director of the statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
He has since retired. In his deposition for the lawsuit, Peters denied that his agency did anything improper, Hoffman said. Peters could not be reached for comment.
The assistant state attorney general who represented the state in the lawsuit, Robert Kraft, refused to comment.
A spokeswoman for OCFS, Pat Cantiello, said no one from the agency could comment because the settlement has not yet been approved by a federal judge.
The whistleblower, who still works for OCFS, also would not comment.
Under the proposed settlement, the state would have to send notices to the 25,000 people on the central register whose requests for hearings were ignored between 2003 and 2007.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin will hold a hearing in April in Manhattan, then decide whether to approve the settlement.
As part of the settlement, the state agreed to stop the practice of calling potential employers to see if they still wanted to hire the person accused of child abuse.
The state agreed that the accused person has a right to a hearing whether the employer is interested or not, Hoffman said.
The settlement only applies to people who requested a hearing and never got one. It doesn’t affect anyone who never requested a hearing or who withdrew his or her hearing request.
Once the settlement is approved, Hoffman will submit a bill for legal services to the court. The state will pay those costs, but will not pay damages under the proposed settlement.
Anyone who might be affected should check Hoffman’s Web site on the case: www.RegistryClassAction.com .
The state gets about 350,000 inquiries a year from prospective employers, including child care centers, foster care agencies, juvenile detention centers and other employers who work with children. The register is accessible only to employers who are required to check a job applicant’s background.
"The employer doesn’t know why you’re on the list,” Hoffman said.
“You could be a pedophile or it could be something benign.” """
Full Document and Source
http://nobidcontracts.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ny-ocfs-denied-thousands-accused-of-child-abuse-the-chance-to-clear-their-name/
March 22, 2010, 6:00AM
Syracuse, NY – The State Office of Children and Family Services in 2004 had a backlog of requests for hearings from people accused of mistreating children.
Three women had recently sued the agency over the delays that were costing them jobs working with kids because they couldn’t get their names cleared.
The agency had a solution to the thousands of pending written requests that would come under scrutiny by the lawsuit, according to sworn testimony from state workers: Shred.
For a month in 2004, the workers were under orders to take carts of the requests for name-clearing hearings and shred them after hours in their Albany offices, according to the testimony. They shredded about a thousand a day for a month, one OCFS worker testified.
The revelation came in a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit last month that could affect 25,000 people across the state who are listed in a statewide database as reported child abusers. Under the settlement, anyone who requested a hearing on child abuse or maltreatment charges but never got it regained the right to the hearing.
Employers such as day care centers check the database to see if a job applicant was ever accused of child abuse. Those accused could request a hearing with OCFS to clear their names. More than half of those challenges result in the accused person being cleared, according to Thomas Hoffman, a lawyer for the three women who sued the state over the lengthy delays.
Those women claimed they lost opportunities for jobs working with children because the state took up to two years to give them a name-clearing hearing. By then, the potential employer had filled the job opening.
Four years after the suit was filed, a whistleblower who works for OCFS called Hoffman, he said.
She told him how the agency was getting rid of the written requests for hearings, then marking the case “waived” or “withdrawn” on the database, court papers said.
The state never told the accused. To the inquiring employer, it would appear that the person had given up on their request for a hearing, and the child abuse accusation stood.
The backlog of hearing requests was much longer than two years — some requests had been sitting around for seven years, court papers said.
The whistleblower came forward in February 2009.
Hoffman then took testimony of 18 or 19 OCFS workers about the handling of the requests for hearings, he said.
In some cases, workers called the prospective employers with whom the accused person had applied for a job, according to the workers’ testimony.
If the employer was no longer interested, the state workers were told to mark the file “waived,” according to the testimony of six OCFS workers.
The accused person was never notified in those cases.
The written requests were shredded or thrown in the garbage,
at least three of the workers testified.
If the whistleblower hadn’t come forward about the shredded cases, Hoffman would never have known the extent of the backlog, he said.
Cathy Dufty, a clerical worker in the office, testified that Supervisor David Peters ordered her to gather a bunch of temp workers and start shredding.
“I would go down to his office about 3:30 and I would take the cart back, and it would be, ‘These are to be shredded, and these over here are to be refiled,’” Dufty testified last year.
Peters was then the director of the statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment.
He has since retired. In his deposition for the lawsuit, Peters denied that his agency did anything improper, Hoffman said. Peters could not be reached for comment.
The assistant state attorney general who represented the state in the lawsuit, Robert Kraft, refused to comment.
A spokeswoman for OCFS, Pat Cantiello, said no one from the agency could comment because the settlement has not yet been approved by a federal judge.
The whistleblower, who still works for OCFS, also would not comment.
Under the proposed settlement, the state would have to send notices to the 25,000 people on the central register whose requests for hearings were ignored between 2003 and 2007.
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin will hold a hearing in April in Manhattan, then decide whether to approve the settlement.
As part of the settlement, the state agreed to stop the practice of calling potential employers to see if they still wanted to hire the person accused of child abuse.
The state agreed that the accused person has a right to a hearing whether the employer is interested or not, Hoffman said.
The settlement only applies to people who requested a hearing and never got one. It doesn’t affect anyone who never requested a hearing or who withdrew his or her hearing request.
Once the settlement is approved, Hoffman will submit a bill for legal services to the court. The state will pay those costs, but will not pay damages under the proposed settlement.
Anyone who might be affected should check Hoffman’s Web site on the case: www.RegistryClassAction.com .
The state gets about 350,000 inquiries a year from prospective employers, including child care centers, foster care agencies, juvenile detention centers and other employers who work with children. The register is accessible only to employers who are required to check a job applicant’s background.
"The employer doesn’t know why you’re on the list,” Hoffman said.
“You could be a pedophile or it could be something benign.” """
Full Document and Source
http://nobidcontracts.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/ny-ocfs-denied-thousands-accused-of-child-abuse-the-chance-to-clear-their-name/
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Blatant and Obvious Fraud on the US Court System. Patent Office Fraud, Patent Attorney Corruption, Supreme Court Corruption, Trillions of Dollars.
The Iviewit Stolen Patent Story is very interesting to Say the Least as it Exposes Corruption in US Courts, Exposes Patent Attorneys Ease in which they can Steal Inventions, Exposes Supreme Court Judges and Attorney Bar Association that Cover Up the Corruption, Side Deals and Favoritism among preferred - Elite - Wealthy Attorneys, and Really wakes you up to Big Corporations Like Intel Corp., Lockheed Martin, Time Warner Inc., Sony, and all the Other major Corporations participating in this Cover Up to Deny Inventors Rights, Deny Due Process and Continue Using their Technology - Simply Ignore 8 and 10 year old Contracts, Blatantly VIOLATED Confidentiality Agreements and violating Law after Law with thus far - No Accountability.
The US Patent Office Deny Rights of Inventors and Seem to be Holding up Investigations for year after year while Real Peoples Live are On Hold and In Danger.
The US Bankruptcy Court System has blatant Obvious Proven Fraud as in the Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy - the Conflicts of Interest and Illegal behavior and For Some Reason, thus far the US Bankruptcy Courts can't seem to see what has happened.
And though there are Literally thousands of Pages of documents of Proof, the US Court Sytem Seems to be Aiding And Abetting the Criminals in all this, Seemingly just because they are Major US Corporations, Meg-Law Firms, Court Judges, Supreme Court Judges, and State Attorney Bars - there is so Much Corruption Truly Where Does One Begin.
We Begin by Understanding the Iviewit Stolen Patent Story, who the Criminals Are, Who are the seemingly Protected Patent Attorneys in all this, Which Supreme Court Judges are Looking the Other way to this Blatant and Obvious Corruption, Who in the State Attorney Bar Complaint Process is Allow this. Once we understand this at least to Some Degree we can see how this happens in the US Courts and How those In Judicial Power Either Willing Let it Happen, Accept Bribes and Pay Offs, or are Threatened Somehow.
How Does a Trillion Dollar Patent Heist Get Pulled Off and For over a Decade So Far.
Well Go to the Links Below and Find Out More on How this Level of Corruption Happens in Your United States Court System.
Click Here to Read what Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J had to Say in August of 2008 about the Fraud, Deceit, and Misrepresentation in the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case.
Also Check Out www.DeniedPatent.com for Names and Players and How A Theft of this Magnitude Can Be Pulled Off in the United States.
Also Go to www.Iviewit.TV Scroll Down Read Through some Documents, I know it is a Lot to Take in, but boy does it Open your Eyes to How Easy Trillion Dollar Heists Really are when you Know the Right People and have the Right Money.
The US Patent Office Deny Rights of Inventors and Seem to be Holding up Investigations for year after year while Real Peoples Live are On Hold and In Danger.
The US Bankruptcy Court System has blatant Obvious Proven Fraud as in the Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy - the Conflicts of Interest and Illegal behavior and For Some Reason, thus far the US Bankruptcy Courts can't seem to see what has happened.
And though there are Literally thousands of Pages of documents of Proof, the US Court Sytem Seems to be Aiding And Abetting the Criminals in all this, Seemingly just because they are Major US Corporations, Meg-Law Firms, Court Judges, Supreme Court Judges, and State Attorney Bars - there is so Much Corruption Truly Where Does One Begin.
We Begin by Understanding the Iviewit Stolen Patent Story, who the Criminals Are, Who are the seemingly Protected Patent Attorneys in all this, Which Supreme Court Judges are Looking the Other way to this Blatant and Obvious Corruption, Who in the State Attorney Bar Complaint Process is Allow this. Once we understand this at least to Some Degree we can see how this happens in the US Courts and How those In Judicial Power Either Willing Let it Happen, Accept Bribes and Pay Offs, or are Threatened Somehow.
How Does a Trillion Dollar Patent Heist Get Pulled Off and For over a Decade So Far.
Well Go to the Links Below and Find Out More on How this Level of Corruption Happens in Your United States Court System.
Click Here to Read what Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, U.S.D.J had to Say in August of 2008 about the Fraud, Deceit, and Misrepresentation in the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case.
Also Check Out www.DeniedPatent.com for Names and Players and How A Theft of this Magnitude Can Be Pulled Off in the United States.
Also Go to www.Iviewit.TV Scroll Down Read Through some Documents, I know it is a Lot to Take in, but boy does it Open your Eyes to How Easy Trillion Dollar Heists Really are when you Know the Right People and have the Right Money.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin Ruling ...
"' Whatever the new media version of "EXTRA! EXTRA!" READ ALL ABOUT IT!" might be, imagine me doing it.
Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, famously of the Zubulake decisions that were the crucible of modern e-discovery practice, has done it again. In the course of an 87-page opinion and order, Her Honor invokes the only line anyone ever remembers from George Santayana and sanctions 13 plaintiffs for negligence and gross negligence in connection with their--ahem--'lackluster' preservation of and search for ESI.
The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, January 10, 2010)
It's a decison that will ruffle feathers in high places. E.g., Her Honor observes: "[T]he admitted failure to preserve some records or search at all for others...leads inexorably to the conclusion that relevant records have been lost or destroyed." (at 35).
Also, while Judge Scheindlin isn't the first to state that the failure to issue a written legal hold notice is "gross negligence," she seems to afford no quarter to effectuating a defensible hold any other way. It appears a face-to-face meeting, phone call, voice mail or course of dealing won't suffice to deflect a determination of gross negligence.
Too, that written hold notice had better be a strong, unambiguous directive to find, preserve and collect, coupled with close supervision of the effort. Total reliance on an employee to search and select won't cut it in Judge Scheindlin's court.
The decision puts a nail in the coffin of custodial-delegated holds and persuades me that, at least in the SDNY, no nabob should delegate preservation and search to minions, and certainly no lawyer should leave search to clients alone.
The opinion prompts further resignation to keep everything--especially all e-mail--and cease rotating tapes ahould someone so much as whisper the word "lawsuit."
Make no mistake: the plaintiffs were no models of probity and diligence. But, reading the particulars of their misconduct, I was struck less by the gravity of their negligence than by how unremarkable their sleepy, sloppy conduct sounded.
Granted, they brought the suit and were duty bound to make production, but think about it: These folks had already lost $550 million to botched investments.
Can't you imagine how thrilled they must have been to devote more time and money to answering discovery requests from the folks that (allegedly) flushed their fortunes away?
They say the rich are different. But not when it comes to e-discovery. They botch it, too! "'
Link to Source and Lots More ..
http://www.eddupdate.com/2010/01/zubulake-revisted.html
Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin, famously of the Zubulake decisions that were the crucible of modern e-discovery practice, has done it again. In the course of an 87-page opinion and order, Her Honor invokes the only line anyone ever remembers from George Santayana and sanctions 13 plaintiffs for negligence and gross negligence in connection with their--ahem--'lackluster' preservation of and search for ESI.
The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, LLC, et al., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, January 10, 2010)
It's a decison that will ruffle feathers in high places. E.g., Her Honor observes: "[T]he admitted failure to preserve some records or search at all for others...leads inexorably to the conclusion that relevant records have been lost or destroyed." (at 35).
Also, while Judge Scheindlin isn't the first to state that the failure to issue a written legal hold notice is "gross negligence," she seems to afford no quarter to effectuating a defensible hold any other way. It appears a face-to-face meeting, phone call, voice mail or course of dealing won't suffice to deflect a determination of gross negligence.
Too, that written hold notice had better be a strong, unambiguous directive to find, preserve and collect, coupled with close supervision of the effort. Total reliance on an employee to search and select won't cut it in Judge Scheindlin's court.
The decision puts a nail in the coffin of custodial-delegated holds and persuades me that, at least in the SDNY, no nabob should delegate preservation and search to minions, and certainly no lawyer should leave search to clients alone.
The opinion prompts further resignation to keep everything--especially all e-mail--and cease rotating tapes ahould someone so much as whisper the word "lawsuit."
Make no mistake: the plaintiffs were no models of probity and diligence. But, reading the particulars of their misconduct, I was struck less by the gravity of their negligence than by how unremarkable their sleepy, sloppy conduct sounded.
Granted, they brought the suit and were duty bound to make production, but think about it: These folks had already lost $550 million to botched investments.
Can't you imagine how thrilled they must have been to devote more time and money to answering discovery requests from the folks that (allegedly) flushed their fortunes away?
They say the rich are different. But not when it comes to e-discovery. They botch it, too! "'
Link to Source and Lots More ..
http://www.eddupdate.com/2010/01/zubulake-revisted.html
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Trillion Dollar Fraud on the US Court System - Who Can STOP this Kind of Interconnected Corruption at the Highest Levels?
Conflicts of Interest, Fraud Against the US Government, Stolen Technology, Stolen Patents, United States Courts, US Patent Office, NYAG, Proskauer Rose, Judge Shira Scheindlin, Christine C. Anderson Whistleblower, Anti-Trust Violations, Iviewit Stolen Patent, Fraud on the Court, Shareholder Liability, New York State Liability, Trillion Dollar Accounting Error, New York Senate Judiciary and More... Read This...
Eliot Bernstein Patent Heiste
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf
Iviewit Stolen Patent,
Eliot Bernstein Patent Heiste
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf
Iviewit Stolen Patent,
Public Office Corruption - Related to the Christine Anderson Whistleblower Case - Scheindlins' Failure to Report
Judge Scheindlin Finds "Systemic" Public Office Corruption in the Legally Related "Whistle Blower" Lawsuit - then Scheindlin Dismisses Eliot Bernsteins Complaints in a Seriously Flawed Dismissal and Failure to Remove and Report Misconduct and Conflict.
The Corruption in the New York Courts is Out of Control and there seems to Be No Way to STOP it - It is Time for We the People To Pay Attention to What is Going on.
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf
Read this Document Pertaining to the Iviewit Stolen Patent and the Relationship to the Corruption in the New York Courts.
The Corruption in the New York Courts is Out of Control and there seems to Be No Way to STOP it - It is Time for We the People To Pay Attention to What is Going on.
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf
Read this Document Pertaining to the Iviewit Stolen Patent and the Relationship to the Corruption in the New York Courts.
$$$$$$
April 2009 Decision and Order by Scheindlin, in the "Legally Related" lawsuit of Christine C. Anderson, Judge Shira Scheindlin formally judicially declared the validity of the Anderson Lawsuit as a "Whistleblower". Judge Scheindlin advancing the case on allegations of "Systemic" Public Office Corruption within the New York Supreme Court involving agencies directly implicated in Plaintiff-Appellant's case herein and directly involving the conduct of several major law firms names as Defendents...
Public Office Corruption at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department and the New York Court Appellate Division First Departmnet - Departmental Disciplinary Committee is center stage in Judge Scheindlin's Decision advancing the Anderson Lawsuit Trial...
Click on the Document in this Post and read all these connections.. and then in January Scheindlin Dismisses iviewit as their Issues being MOOT and not based in Fact... the Corruption in the New York Court System is Blatantly Obvious and No One Seems to Be Looking at it.
Christine C. Anderson, Judge Shira Scheindlin
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090908%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20SIGNED44948.pdf
Christine C. Anderson, Judge Shira Scheindlin
and Don't Forget to Check Out the January 2012 Smackdown - Dismissal - Talk about Double Standards - Conflicts of Interest - Corruption - Denying Due Process
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20100109%20US%20Court%20of%20Appeal%20Denial%20of%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20and%20Appeal.pdf
More on this Case at
www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV
Christine C. Anderson, Judge Shira Scheindlin
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
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/
Monday, December 21, 2009
Roy L. Reardon, Response to Roy Reardon - New York Supreme Court Appellate Division - Chairman
DRAFT Response to Roy Reardon, New York Supreme Court
How Long Can This Guy handle Complaints against Himself, be involved Coverups, Conspiracies, and the Stealing of a Trillion Dollar Patent by way of ignoring complaints and DOING Nothing?
r
Here is the Responce to Roy L. Reardon NY Supreme Court
from Eliot Bernstein.
r
Monday, December 14, 2009
I-VIEW-IT HOLDINGS, INC.
I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
TO: Roy L. Reardon
Chairman
New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division First
Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee
61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
(212) 401-0800
also Partner @
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3954
Regarding: Your Continued Insanity in handling complaints against YOURSELF, Alan W. Friedberg and Other Defendents in a Twelve Count - Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Legally Related to a Whistleblower Causing Mass Liablity, you are Concealing from the State of New York and the People of New York.
roy reardon
Dear Mr. Reardon,
I. Response to Your Letter Dated December 07, 2009.
Your audacity bemuses me and allow me to retort to your and Mr. Friedberg’s
insanity and again put forth some basic realities regarding your misconduct and criminal
acts.
First, my seventy-eight page complaint against Mr. Friedberg and YOU, if you
have read it, is also a RE-FILED complaint against you, this letter shall serve as a third
and a bit more severe complaint.
Your letter is in response to the earlier complaints against Mr. Friedberg and yourself that you buried since February 2009, until sequestered by the NEW YORK STATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, which requested that you provide information regarding the CONCEALED complaints to them, not me.
Nevertheless, in delusion, you responded to me regarding your complaints and tried to
dismiss complaints against yourself and your partner in crime, Mr. Friedberg, while your
department is in a lawsuit with me. In that lawsuit, your department has representative
ILLEGALLY retained counsel, the New York Attorney General and yet you continue to
pester me with your continued handling of your own and Mr. Friedberg’s complaints, as well as, attempting ILLEGALLY to dismiss complaints against other defendants in the
lawsuit.
Let me dissect your letters errors one by one before I begin my further FORMAL
COMPLAINT against you in addition to the one you have buried for months and now try
to dismiss:
1. First, you state, “Your 78 page fax dated December 3, 2009 labeled as a
complaint against Chief Counsel Alan W. Friedberg has been referred to me.”
The problem in this statement is that you fail to see that the 78 Page Fax
Complaint, is a re-filing of the complaint you have admitted to concealing
since February 2009 against both YOU and Mr. Friedberg.
The FORMAL COMPLAINT is actually against you and Mr. Friedberg, so had you really
read the Complaint, you would see it would be impossible for it to be referred to you, as you are a Main Character in the Complaint. I resubmitted that complaint due ONLY to your prior CONCEALMENT of OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
I have attached herein, that same complaint but have individually broke it out for you with your very own cover page. By the by, your inappropriate letter that defies ethics again has NO FORMAL DOCKETING number for the Friedberg case, so I wonder how to appeal it or
if it has been CONCEALED again.
2. Next, you claim laughably, “Among other things, the document contains
copies of letters from you to State Senator John L. Sampson of the New York
Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that the DDC has engaged in conflicts of
interest, corruption and other wrongful acts. We find no merit in those
accusations.”
The silliness of your statement here, although criminal in
nature, is very telling of your cognizance of the allegations contained in the
FORMAL COMPLAINT that was CONCEALED and further stands as
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONTINUED CRIMINAL
CONDUCT in trying to dismiss complaints you and your whole department
are conflicted in, Mr. Friedberg and yourself especially, since you have
FORMAL COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST BOTH OF YOU.
Now it becomes a bit dicey for you, as your RULES AND REGULATIONS OF YOUR DEPARTMENT CLAIM § 605.6 Investigations and Informal Proceedings
(g) Preliminary Screening of Complaints. Any complaint
received by the Office of Chief Counsel against a member
of the Committee or Staff counsel involving alleged
misconduct shall be transmitted forthwith to the Committee
Chairperson, who shall assign it either to the Office of
Chief Counsel or to special counsel who shall conduct or
direct the appropriate investigation, and give a written
recommendation as to the disposition of the Complaint to
the Committee Chairperson, who shall determine the
appropriate disposition of the Complaint.
Any such Complaint which relates to the Committee Chairperson shall, in the first instance, be transmitted to a Hearing Panel Chairperson, who shall conduct the appropriate investigation and determine the appropriate disposition of the Complaint.
My complaint Mr. Roy Reardon is a twofold problem for you as the FORMAL COMPLAINTS YOU HAVE CONCEALED SINCE FEBRUARY 2009, are against YOU, acting as the Chair of the DDC and your partner in crime, Mr. Alan Friedberg, acting as Chief Counsel.
It is clever how in your SELF DISMISSING LETTER which defies ethics, you try and CONCEAL that Friedberg’s complaint has been transferred to you, which according to your own rules would be a violation, as the COMPLAINT is also against YOU.
Thus, you are AGAIN violating your OWN rules by trying to hide that you
also are knowingly COMPLAINED of FORMALLY, by way of the Sampson
Letters you have received several times now and the ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT I re-filed. Nice try, though, “desperate men…”
3. Amazingly, your letter continues “In any event, your new "complaint" against
Mr. Friedberg provides no basis on which the Committee should pursue
action.” First, there is NO NEW COMPLAINT, this is merely a re-filing of
the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT you have ILLEGALLY CONCEALED in
violation of LAW against both you and Mr. Alan W. Friedberg and now your trying to
make it as a new complaint is both ridiculous and further criminal and will so
be reported to ALL appropriate oversight authorities and criminal
investigators of your continued violations and further attempt at CRIMINAL
CONCEALMENT.
Second, since you should not be handling complaints against yourself or your partner in crime Mr. Friedberg, it defies logic and law how you claim there is no basis in a complaint against yourself and where you should have already turned the matter over, per your rules you would have to turn the matter over to a Hearing Panel Chair, which obviously you fail to do in regard to the FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AND MR.
FRIEDBERG.
Again serving as prima facie evidence of your CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, this statement will also be forwarded to all
appropriate oversight of your continued CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
4. The next statement truly shows your detachment from both reality and the
rules and regulations that define ETHICS. I quote your insanity, “Indeed, you
appear to be arguing that anyone associated with the Committee is precluded
from considering the merits of your complaint.” Yes indeed Mr. Reardon I do
make the claim that NOBODY in your department can handle these
complaints and for several factual reasons.
First, your department is a DEFENDANT in a 12-COUNT, 12-TRILLION dollar LAWSUIT, which I am certain you are not concealing from state auditors, well, perhaps you could clarify that for me in writing, as I am sure you are reporting the liability on
your and the states books, liabilities directly related to your CRIMINAL
CONDUCT and CONTINUED CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
As DEFENDANT’S in the ONGOING LEGAL ACTION the whole First
Department is precluded from involvement due to CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST and THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY this creates.
Next, the CONFLICTS and APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY also act
together to create CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS. This CRIMINAL ACT, also will be reported to your
oversight and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.
As the First Department DDC is a DEFENDANT in the LAWSUIT, the DDC
also has representative ILLEGAL counsel, the New York Attorney General
and Monica Connell of their offices.
Upon filing the complaints against other DEFENDANTS in the same LAWSUIT, Ms. Connell advised me as YOUR COUNSEL to file the complaints with your offices against the Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner attorneys (as the attorneys complained of are licensed
there) but that they would be moved instantly to a NON CONFLICTED
THIRD PARTY.
Moved to avoid the OBVIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY your handling of the complaints creates.
Yet, somehow, you sneaky dog, you and your partner in
crime, Mr. Friedberg, interceded and attempted to DISMISS COMPLAINTS
AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THE LAWSUIT YOUR
DEPARTMENT IS A NAMED DEFENDANT IN.
Again, these CONFLICTS act to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and will duly be noted to all
oversight of the DDC and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.
Therefore, your question asks if I think anyone in your department can handle
these complaints and the answer is NO THEY CANNOT and I advise YOU,
Mr. Friedberg and any other department official that each act on these
complaints will result in further FORMAL COMPLAINTS to your oversight
and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.
5. Your letter continues insanely “On October 7, 2009 I wrote to you advising that your previous complaints against Mr. Friedberg and other attorneys have been closed.” Now here your sneakiness is better than a proverbial “snake in the grass” as you attempt to state that my previous complaints filed against you and Mr. Friedberg for dismissing complaints against other DEFENDANTS are closed. Mixing apples and oranges while hiding the beef.
First, my previous complaints against other attorneys, resulted in you and Mr.
Friedberg handling them, leading to separate complaints against both you and
Mr. Friedberg.
Love how you refer to “other attorneys” in a third person voice, versus
identifying that YOU Mr. Reardon, are one of the “other” attorneys you
reference. Do you often refer to yourself in the third person; this is a very
symbolic sign of pathological behavior indicating delusion. Perhaps you
could have written more accurately, something like – your complaints against
Mr. Friedberg, MYSELF and other attorneys.
Again, you CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS, which creates further CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
Finally, I am not sure how the FORMAL COMPLAINTS can be closed when they have not been opened formally with Complaint Numbers for me to even respond too, as demanded in my complaint and as part of the RULES and REGULATIONS of your department that you psychotically continue to ignore, ah, “desperate men…”
6. Finally, this my favorite act of your insanity, I quote, “You may wish to
consider consulting with counsel regarding the matters raised in your
submissions.” To be clear, I have consulted counsel, YOUR COUNSEL the
New York Attorney General and it was determined that you are conflicted and
cannot handle complaints against other Defendants nor yourself and Mr.
Friedberg, per your own departmental Rules and Regulation, Part 600, per the
Attorney Code of Conduct and Law. The result, was to have the complaints moved to a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY.
I advise you therefore to consider consulting with YOUR COUNSEL regarding the matters raised against you CRIMINALLY and then CIVIL charges against you and your
department in the civil complaint.
I advise you to consult your counsel as to further pestering me directly, where
as you know, I represent myself Pro Se, so it is highly unethical and against
the Attorney Conduct Code for you, an attorney, to be contacting me directly
when you have representative counsel.
I find teaching your ethics at this point to be an utter waste of my time, as you seem not be able to discern realistically what your own ethical obligations are, nor what the Rules
you are charged with oversighting state and finally the Law.
I therefore highly recommend that you discontinue with contacting me directly and have
your attorney handle these matters going forward.
Of course, your attorney, the New York Attorney General, is also a DEFENDANT in my LAWSUIT and his representation is therefore suspect as aiding and abetting illegally your department through CONFLICTED representation that VIOLATES the NYAG Rules Public Office Rule 17 for one and that ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION also compounds to cause
Obstruction of Justice as the Conflict precludes the NYAG from doing his public duty of investigating dirty rotten Public Officials, like yourself and Mr. Friedberg.
As my LAWSUIT has been marked legally “RELATED” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin to that of the First Department DDC Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson, we see that Anderson similarly is complaining that the NYAG illegal representation of State Defendants from your offices, is a Violation of the NYAG Rules and Regulations and Law, whereby you can get a gander for her position at the following URL, incorporated by reference in entirety herein @ ____________
The allegations in the FORMAL COMPLAINTS against Mr. Friedberg and yourself are replete with concrete evidence of crimes you are committing by violating the very ethics laws you and Mr. Friedberg are in charge of upholding. Conflicts like your department and several of the First Department Judges are direct defendants in a TWELVE COUNT, TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL LAWSUIT that of course, I know you are not too delusional to have reported this liability and your involvement to any state auditors, state agencies and others who have liability resulting from your continued criminal conduct.
The very fact that you attempt to ignore the conflicts and continue to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE in violation of FEDERAL and STATE CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION LAWS, ATTORNEY ETHICS CODES and more will be formally reported to your oversight and criminal authorities.
Yet, while your letter attempts to claim no conflict, almost, you failed to sign and
return the CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM attached to the
COMPLAINT. This failure serves as further evidence of your CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION through CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which now will be formulated
along with this letter, to several of your oversight authorities, as a FORMAL AFFIRMED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.
Under the laws of NEW YORK and the UNITED STATES, in the interim until authorities can arrest you for your felonious acts, I place you under CITIZENS ARREST and I advise you not only to seek independent counsel but also to turn yourself in to the proper authorities for processing for FELONY charges both state and federal.
I remind you that I have sent the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK
and FEDERAL AUTHORITIES information regarding your involvement in RICO
related crimes, along with many in your department.
Quite contrary to your claim, I do not think anyone in your CORRUPT COMMITTEE or DEPARTMENT can handle these complaints without conflict and if you are so confident in your meritorious good work on behalf of the Good People of New York, you should welcome a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY review, as certainly you have nothing to hide.
Nothing to hide but everything, including the complaint against yourself that you keep concealing, even in your recent reply trying to dismiss the FORMAL COMPLAINT
against Mr. Friedberg while failing to state that you are also complained of since February of 2009, making your handling of any complaints, including your own, not only conflicted but criminal. Your attached letter, mentions other attorneys complained of but
fails to mention that YOU sir are one of those complained of and therefore are certainly
conflicted.
II. Actions to be Taken
• Please see 78 Page Complaint Against You filed for a Second Time since
February 2009 after you concealed those complaints
• This complaint is a refilling of that complaint and submission to the
Judiciary Committee for Oversight of Your Office and pursuing criminal investigations
within their scope of power over your Department, as part of the ONGOING
INVESTIGATION BY THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ABOUT YOUR and YOUR DEPARTMENTS FAILURE IN TOTO.
• Note that we are attaching copy of a SWORN AFFIRMED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT to all of the following, including but not limited to,
o Blah
o Blah
III. Conclusion
According to Whistleblower Christine Anderson under sworn oath in a Federal
Court and many others who have come forth to expose the ongoing Whitewashing of
Complaints, your offices are alleged to be involved in criminal obstruction of official
proceedings and threatening federal witnesses.
Nice reputation for an ETHICS department but we will get to that in a moment.
Not only are your offices accused of obstructing proceedings against “Favored Law Firms and Lawyers” but further criminal Whitewashing of Complaints was also alleged in regard to Whitewashing disciplinary complaints for the US Attorney, District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney by the “Cleaner”.
The “Cleaner” aka Naomi Goldstein of your offices, so named by your former Staff Attorney, Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson your offices should be under not only internal investigation but external.
Again, solid reasons for you and your entire department’s recusal from further involvement, other than turning yourself in and getting non-conflicted counsel to represent you.
Further, and most importantly, your failure to regulate the misconducts of the lawyers in your department according to well established rules and regulations of your department, you have failed this great nation and the People of the Great State of New York in your obfuscations of regulation.
For example, had you done your job investigating Proskauer Rose for example when I first complained, your department could have saved many peoples losses in the Sir Allan Stanford affairs, where Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom ( a former SEC Enforcement Employee ) were involved in teaching employees how to lie to Federal Authorities and have been sued for the entire amount of the Ponzi losses in a Global Class Action lawsuit.
My recommendation will be for any unrecoverable losses that those VICTIMS sue you and
your department for failure to regulate and possible conspiratorial roles in the cover up of
the crimes.
Had you investigated Proskauer Rose when I first informed you of their misconducts
and crimes, you also could have prevented many people over the 7 seven years from
losing their lives savings in the Bernard Madoff affair and saved the hundreds of charities
destroyed by Madoff and lives ruined.
Yes, you are the oversight that could have prevented these calamities and are responsible for your failures to the victims. In fact, since Proskauer appears to have senior partners basically running the First Department and the Ethics Department from Steven C. Krane, a Proskauer partner caught handling his own and his firms complaints while an officer of the First Department DDC, to recently deceased DDC officer Stephen Rakowe Kaye, a Proskauer partner and married to former Chief Judge Judith Kaye who had ultimate control over the department with her husband and Krane her former clerk, no wonder complaints bounced off them into your trash can.
Yet and personally more tragic, is the fact that had you done your job regulating
the attorneys, your “favored law firms and lawyers” most likely a BOMB would not have
been placed in my family minivan ( images at www.iviewit.tv ) allowing someone to
ATTEMPT to MURDER us.
It is strange to note how the timing of that event coincided with discovery that STEVEN C. KRANE of Proskauer and Thomas Cahill ( former Chief Counsel of the DDC ) where found violating First Department DDC Rules and Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law leading to the First Department Court, in inanimous consent, transferring complaints against Krane of PROSKAUER and also a FIRST DEPARTMENT OFFICER, Krane’s Proskauer partners he was representing ILLEGALLY in complaints while a DDC OFFICER and even Krane representing himself while an officer ( sounds familiar ).
Thomas Cahill also was transferred for Special Inquiry at that time and your recent handling of that complaint, with Mr. Stephen Lamont and attempting to dismiss that complaint, again while really clever, will also be further evidence of your CRIMINAL ACTS filed with CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES.
Lest us not forget to remind those judging your actions of the fact that your
department is supposed to regulate Wall Street lawyers and we can all see what your lax
regulations have produced.
I also remind you that your department appears to be the regulator for several fine attorneys in the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel who are being accused of war crimes for their violations of ethics and law that have allowed the torture and murder of innocent untried people, quite similar to Nazi Extermination Camps where habeas rights similarly were removed by dirty rotten lawyers, who were actually criminals with legal degrees who made concentration camps and murder legal for undesirables.
I remind you of the Judges Trial so that today while you feel elevated above the law, enough so to first conceal and then attempt to dismiss complaints against yourself, in drunken and high delusions of grandeur, that one day you will be tried for these crimes as Justice is restored and even the Nazi lawyers and judges had their day in the infamous Judges Trial at the Nuremberg Trials. I await hearing your defenses from behind the glass.
Truly, and I mean this FIGURATIVELY not LITERALLY, I hope this letter feels
like a bomb in your car and you may live with your family in similar trepidation that one
day your world will end, when your scam ends and you are tried in a fair and impartial
court, free of conflict ( you know the thing your supposed to be protecting ) where
hopefully you will serve the remainder of your life contemplating the magnanimity of the
damage you have done to my family, my shareholders, those you have embroiled in your
crimes like Ms. Anderson, those victims of your crimes that appear lining up with each
new Judiciary Committee, all those who lost homes or 401k’s from lawyers schemes in
an unregulated capacity free to commit financial crimes, as the REGULATOR, YOU was
naught more than a criminal in on the crimes.
Most DisRespectfully Yours,
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
cc/ec:
Roy L. Reardon
Chairman Monday, December 14, 2009
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee
Re: YOUR CONTINUED INSANITY IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOURSELF,
ALAN W. FRIEDBERG AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN A TWELVE COUNT TWELVE
TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT LEGALLY RELATED TO A WHISTLEBLOWER
CAUSING MASS LIABILITY YOU ARE CONCEALING FROM THE STATE AND
PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM YOUR CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT
roy reardon
Iviewit Holdings , Inc.
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
Source:
www.iviewit.tv
r
Much More on Roy L. Reardon Coming Soon.
r Iviewit Holdings, Eliot Bernstein,
How Long Can This Guy handle Complaints against Himself, be involved Coverups, Conspiracies, and the Stealing of a Trillion Dollar Patent by way of ignoring complaints and DOING Nothing?
r
Here is the Responce to Roy L. Reardon NY Supreme Court
from Eliot Bernstein.
r
Monday, December 14, 2009
I-VIEW-IT HOLDINGS, INC.
I-VIEW-IT TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
TO: Roy L. Reardon
Chairman
New York Supreme Court
Appellate Division First
Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee
61 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
(212) 401-0800
also Partner @
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
425 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017-3954
Regarding: Your Continued Insanity in handling complaints against YOURSELF, Alan W. Friedberg and Other Defendents in a Twelve Count - Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Legally Related to a Whistleblower Causing Mass Liablity, you are Concealing from the State of New York and the People of New York.
roy reardon
Dear Mr. Reardon,
I. Response to Your Letter Dated December 07, 2009.
Your audacity bemuses me and allow me to retort to your and Mr. Friedberg’s
insanity and again put forth some basic realities regarding your misconduct and criminal
acts.
First, my seventy-eight page complaint against Mr. Friedberg and YOU, if you
have read it, is also a RE-FILED complaint against you, this letter shall serve as a third
and a bit more severe complaint.
Your letter is in response to the earlier complaints against Mr. Friedberg and yourself that you buried since February 2009, until sequestered by the NEW YORK STATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, which requested that you provide information regarding the CONCEALED complaints to them, not me.
Nevertheless, in delusion, you responded to me regarding your complaints and tried to
dismiss complaints against yourself and your partner in crime, Mr. Friedberg, while your
department is in a lawsuit with me. In that lawsuit, your department has representative
ILLEGALLY retained counsel, the New York Attorney General and yet you continue to
pester me with your continued handling of your own and Mr. Friedberg’s complaints, as well as, attempting ILLEGALLY to dismiss complaints against other defendants in the
lawsuit.
Let me dissect your letters errors one by one before I begin my further FORMAL
COMPLAINT against you in addition to the one you have buried for months and now try
to dismiss:
1. First, you state, “Your 78 page fax dated December 3, 2009 labeled as a
complaint against Chief Counsel Alan W. Friedberg has been referred to me.”
The problem in this statement is that you fail to see that the 78 Page Fax
Complaint, is a re-filing of the complaint you have admitted to concealing
since February 2009 against both YOU and Mr. Friedberg.
The FORMAL COMPLAINT is actually against you and Mr. Friedberg, so had you really
read the Complaint, you would see it would be impossible for it to be referred to you, as you are a Main Character in the Complaint. I resubmitted that complaint due ONLY to your prior CONCEALMENT of OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS.
I have attached herein, that same complaint but have individually broke it out for you with your very own cover page. By the by, your inappropriate letter that defies ethics again has NO FORMAL DOCKETING number for the Friedberg case, so I wonder how to appeal it or
if it has been CONCEALED again.
2. Next, you claim laughably, “Among other things, the document contains
copies of letters from you to State Senator John L. Sampson of the New York
Senate Judiciary Committee alleging that the DDC has engaged in conflicts of
interest, corruption and other wrongful acts. We find no merit in those
accusations.”
The silliness of your statement here, although criminal in
nature, is very telling of your cognizance of the allegations contained in the
FORMAL COMPLAINT that was CONCEALED and further stands as
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONTINUED CRIMINAL
CONDUCT in trying to dismiss complaints you and your whole department
are conflicted in, Mr. Friedberg and yourself especially, since you have
FORMAL COMPLAINTS LODGED AGAINST BOTH OF YOU.
Now it becomes a bit dicey for you, as your RULES AND REGULATIONS OF YOUR DEPARTMENT CLAIM § 605.6 Investigations and Informal Proceedings
(g) Preliminary Screening of Complaints. Any complaint
received by the Office of Chief Counsel against a member
of the Committee or Staff counsel involving alleged
misconduct shall be transmitted forthwith to the Committee
Chairperson, who shall assign it either to the Office of
Chief Counsel or to special counsel who shall conduct or
direct the appropriate investigation, and give a written
recommendation as to the disposition of the Complaint to
the Committee Chairperson, who shall determine the
appropriate disposition of the Complaint.
Any such Complaint which relates to the Committee Chairperson shall, in the first instance, be transmitted to a Hearing Panel Chairperson, who shall conduct the appropriate investigation and determine the appropriate disposition of the Complaint.
My complaint Mr. Roy Reardon is a twofold problem for you as the FORMAL COMPLAINTS YOU HAVE CONCEALED SINCE FEBRUARY 2009, are against YOU, acting as the Chair of the DDC and your partner in crime, Mr. Alan Friedberg, acting as Chief Counsel.
It is clever how in your SELF DISMISSING LETTER which defies ethics, you try and CONCEAL that Friedberg’s complaint has been transferred to you, which according to your own rules would be a violation, as the COMPLAINT is also against YOU.
Thus, you are AGAIN violating your OWN rules by trying to hide that you
also are knowingly COMPLAINED of FORMALLY, by way of the Sampson
Letters you have received several times now and the ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT I re-filed. Nice try, though, “desperate men…”
3. Amazingly, your letter continues “In any event, your new "complaint" against
Mr. Friedberg provides no basis on which the Committee should pursue
action.” First, there is NO NEW COMPLAINT, this is merely a re-filing of
the ORIGINAL COMPLAINT you have ILLEGALLY CONCEALED in
violation of LAW against both you and Mr. Alan W. Friedberg and now your trying to
make it as a new complaint is both ridiculous and further criminal and will so
be reported to ALL appropriate oversight authorities and criminal
investigators of your continued violations and further attempt at CRIMINAL
CONCEALMENT.
Second, since you should not be handling complaints against yourself or your partner in crime Mr. Friedberg, it defies logic and law how you claim there is no basis in a complaint against yourself and where you should have already turned the matter over, per your rules you would have to turn the matter over to a Hearing Panel Chair, which obviously you fail to do in regard to the FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AND MR.
FRIEDBERG.
Again serving as prima facie evidence of your CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT, this statement will also be forwarded to all
appropriate oversight of your continued CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
4. The next statement truly shows your detachment from both reality and the
rules and regulations that define ETHICS. I quote your insanity, “Indeed, you
appear to be arguing that anyone associated with the Committee is precluded
from considering the merits of your complaint.” Yes indeed Mr. Reardon I do
make the claim that NOBODY in your department can handle these
complaints and for several factual reasons.
First, your department is a DEFENDANT in a 12-COUNT, 12-TRILLION dollar LAWSUIT, which I am certain you are not concealing from state auditors, well, perhaps you could clarify that for me in writing, as I am sure you are reporting the liability on
your and the states books, liabilities directly related to your CRIMINAL
CONDUCT and CONTINUED CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
As DEFENDANT’S in the ONGOING LEGAL ACTION the whole First
Department is precluded from involvement due to CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST and THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY this creates.
Next, the CONFLICTS and APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY also act
together to create CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS. This CRIMINAL ACT, also will be reported to your
oversight and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.
As the First Department DDC is a DEFENDANT in the LAWSUIT, the DDC
also has representative ILLEGAL counsel, the New York Attorney General
and Monica Connell of their offices.
Upon filing the complaints against other DEFENDANTS in the same LAWSUIT, Ms. Connell advised me as YOUR COUNSEL to file the complaints with your offices against the Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner attorneys (as the attorneys complained of are licensed
there) but that they would be moved instantly to a NON CONFLICTED
THIRD PARTY.
Moved to avoid the OBVIOUS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND APPEARANCES OF IMPROPRIETY your handling of the complaints creates.
Yet, somehow, you sneaky dog, you and your partner in
crime, Mr. Friedberg, interceded and attempted to DISMISS COMPLAINTS
AGAINST OTHER DEFENDANTS IN THE LAWSUIT YOUR
DEPARTMENT IS A NAMED DEFENDANT IN.
Again, these CONFLICTS act to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE and will duly be noted to all
oversight of the DDC and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.
Therefore, your question asks if I think anyone in your department can handle
these complaints and the answer is NO THEY CANNOT and I advise YOU,
Mr. Friedberg and any other department official that each act on these
complaints will result in further FORMAL COMPLAINTS to your oversight
and CRIMINAL INVESTIGATORS.
5. Your letter continues insanely “On October 7, 2009 I wrote to you advising that your previous complaints against Mr. Friedberg and other attorneys have been closed.” Now here your sneakiness is better than a proverbial “snake in the grass” as you attempt to state that my previous complaints filed against you and Mr. Friedberg for dismissing complaints against other DEFENDANTS are closed. Mixing apples and oranges while hiding the beef.
First, my previous complaints against other attorneys, resulted in you and Mr.
Friedberg handling them, leading to separate complaints against both you and
Mr. Friedberg.
Love how you refer to “other attorneys” in a third person voice, versus
identifying that YOU Mr. Reardon, are one of the “other” attorneys you
reference. Do you often refer to yourself in the third person; this is a very
symbolic sign of pathological behavior indicating delusion. Perhaps you
could have written more accurately, something like – your complaints against
Mr. Friedberg, MYSELF and other attorneys.
Again, you CONCEAL MATERIAL FACTS, which creates further CRIMINAL CONDUCT.
Finally, I am not sure how the FORMAL COMPLAINTS can be closed when they have not been opened formally with Complaint Numbers for me to even respond too, as demanded in my complaint and as part of the RULES and REGULATIONS of your department that you psychotically continue to ignore, ah, “desperate men…”
6. Finally, this my favorite act of your insanity, I quote, “You may wish to
consider consulting with counsel regarding the matters raised in your
submissions.” To be clear, I have consulted counsel, YOUR COUNSEL the
New York Attorney General and it was determined that you are conflicted and
cannot handle complaints against other Defendants nor yourself and Mr.
Friedberg, per your own departmental Rules and Regulation, Part 600, per the
Attorney Code of Conduct and Law. The result, was to have the complaints moved to a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY.
I advise you therefore to consider consulting with YOUR COUNSEL regarding the matters raised against you CRIMINALLY and then CIVIL charges against you and your
department in the civil complaint.
I advise you to consult your counsel as to further pestering me directly, where
as you know, I represent myself Pro Se, so it is highly unethical and against
the Attorney Conduct Code for you, an attorney, to be contacting me directly
when you have representative counsel.
I find teaching your ethics at this point to be an utter waste of my time, as you seem not be able to discern realistically what your own ethical obligations are, nor what the Rules
you are charged with oversighting state and finally the Law.
I therefore highly recommend that you discontinue with contacting me directly and have
your attorney handle these matters going forward.
Of course, your attorney, the New York Attorney General, is also a DEFENDANT in my LAWSUIT and his representation is therefore suspect as aiding and abetting illegally your department through CONFLICTED representation that VIOLATES the NYAG Rules Public Office Rule 17 for one and that ILLEGAL REPRESENTATION also compounds to cause
Obstruction of Justice as the Conflict precludes the NYAG from doing his public duty of investigating dirty rotten Public Officials, like yourself and Mr. Friedberg.
As my LAWSUIT has been marked legally “RELATED” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin to that of the First Department DDC Whistleblower case of Christine C. Anderson, we see that Anderson similarly is complaining that the NYAG illegal representation of State Defendants from your offices, is a Violation of the NYAG Rules and Regulations and Law, whereby you can get a gander for her position at the following URL, incorporated by reference in entirety herein @ ____________
The allegations in the FORMAL COMPLAINTS against Mr. Friedberg and yourself are replete with concrete evidence of crimes you are committing by violating the very ethics laws you and Mr. Friedberg are in charge of upholding. Conflicts like your department and several of the First Department Judges are direct defendants in a TWELVE COUNT, TWELVE TRILLION DOLLAR FEDERAL LAWSUIT that of course, I know you are not too delusional to have reported this liability and your involvement to any state auditors, state agencies and others who have liability resulting from your continued criminal conduct.
The very fact that you attempt to ignore the conflicts and continue to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE in violation of FEDERAL and STATE CRIMINAL OBSTRUCTION LAWS, ATTORNEY ETHICS CODES and more will be formally reported to your oversight and criminal authorities.
Yet, while your letter attempts to claim no conflict, almost, you failed to sign and
return the CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE FORM attached to the
COMPLAINT. This failure serves as further evidence of your CRIMINAL
OBSTRUCTION through CONFLICT OF INTEREST, which now will be formulated
along with this letter, to several of your oversight authorities, as a FORMAL AFFIRMED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU.
Under the laws of NEW YORK and the UNITED STATES, in the interim until authorities can arrest you for your felonious acts, I place you under CITIZENS ARREST and I advise you not only to seek independent counsel but also to turn yourself in to the proper authorities for processing for FELONY charges both state and federal.
I remind you that I have sent the JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF NEW YORK
and FEDERAL AUTHORITIES information regarding your involvement in RICO
related crimes, along with many in your department.
Quite contrary to your claim, I do not think anyone in your CORRUPT COMMITTEE or DEPARTMENT can handle these complaints without conflict and if you are so confident in your meritorious good work on behalf of the Good People of New York, you should welcome a NON CONFLICTED THIRD PARTY review, as certainly you have nothing to hide.
Nothing to hide but everything, including the complaint against yourself that you keep concealing, even in your recent reply trying to dismiss the FORMAL COMPLAINT
against Mr. Friedberg while failing to state that you are also complained of since February of 2009, making your handling of any complaints, including your own, not only conflicted but criminal. Your attached letter, mentions other attorneys complained of but
fails to mention that YOU sir are one of those complained of and therefore are certainly
conflicted.
II. Actions to be Taken
• Please see 78 Page Complaint Against You filed for a Second Time since
February 2009 after you concealed those complaints
• This complaint is a refilling of that complaint and submission to the
Judiciary Committee for Oversight of Your Office and pursuing criminal investigations
within their scope of power over your Department, as part of the ONGOING
INVESTIGATION BY THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
ABOUT YOUR and YOUR DEPARTMENTS FAILURE IN TOTO.
• Note that we are attaching copy of a SWORN AFFIRMED CRIMINAL
COMPLAINT to all of the following, including but not limited to,
o Blah
o Blah
III. Conclusion
According to Whistleblower Christine Anderson under sworn oath in a Federal
Court and many others who have come forth to expose the ongoing Whitewashing of
Complaints, your offices are alleged to be involved in criminal obstruction of official
proceedings and threatening federal witnesses.
Nice reputation for an ETHICS department but we will get to that in a moment.
Not only are your offices accused of obstructing proceedings against “Favored Law Firms and Lawyers” but further criminal Whitewashing of Complaints was also alleged in regard to Whitewashing disciplinary complaints for the US Attorney, District Attorney and Assistant District Attorney by the “Cleaner”.
The “Cleaner” aka Naomi Goldstein of your offices, so named by your former Staff Attorney, Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson your offices should be under not only internal investigation but external.
Again, solid reasons for you and your entire department’s recusal from further involvement, other than turning yourself in and getting non-conflicted counsel to represent you.
Further, and most importantly, your failure to regulate the misconducts of the lawyers in your department according to well established rules and regulations of your department, you have failed this great nation and the People of the Great State of New York in your obfuscations of regulation.
For example, had you done your job investigating Proskauer Rose for example when I first complained, your department could have saved many peoples losses in the Sir Allan Stanford affairs, where Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom ( a former SEC Enforcement Employee ) were involved in teaching employees how to lie to Federal Authorities and have been sued for the entire amount of the Ponzi losses in a Global Class Action lawsuit.
My recommendation will be for any unrecoverable losses that those VICTIMS sue you and
your department for failure to regulate and possible conspiratorial roles in the cover up of
the crimes.
Had you investigated Proskauer Rose when I first informed you of their misconducts
and crimes, you also could have prevented many people over the 7 seven years from
losing their lives savings in the Bernard Madoff affair and saved the hundreds of charities
destroyed by Madoff and lives ruined.
Yes, you are the oversight that could have prevented these calamities and are responsible for your failures to the victims. In fact, since Proskauer appears to have senior partners basically running the First Department and the Ethics Department from Steven C. Krane, a Proskauer partner caught handling his own and his firms complaints while an officer of the First Department DDC, to recently deceased DDC officer Stephen Rakowe Kaye, a Proskauer partner and married to former Chief Judge Judith Kaye who had ultimate control over the department with her husband and Krane her former clerk, no wonder complaints bounced off them into your trash can.
Yet and personally more tragic, is the fact that had you done your job regulating
the attorneys, your “favored law firms and lawyers” most likely a BOMB would not have
been placed in my family minivan ( images at www.iviewit.tv ) allowing someone to
ATTEMPT to MURDER us.
It is strange to note how the timing of that event coincided with discovery that STEVEN C. KRANE of Proskauer and Thomas Cahill ( former Chief Counsel of the DDC ) where found violating First Department DDC Rules and Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and Law leading to the First Department Court, in inanimous consent, transferring complaints against Krane of PROSKAUER and also a FIRST DEPARTMENT OFFICER, Krane’s Proskauer partners he was representing ILLEGALLY in complaints while a DDC OFFICER and even Krane representing himself while an officer ( sounds familiar ).
Thomas Cahill also was transferred for Special Inquiry at that time and your recent handling of that complaint, with Mr. Stephen Lamont and attempting to dismiss that complaint, again while really clever, will also be further evidence of your CRIMINAL ACTS filed with CRIMINAL AUTHORITIES.
Lest us not forget to remind those judging your actions of the fact that your
department is supposed to regulate Wall Street lawyers and we can all see what your lax
regulations have produced.
I also remind you that your department appears to be the regulator for several fine attorneys in the Justice Department and Office of Legal Counsel who are being accused of war crimes for their violations of ethics and law that have allowed the torture and murder of innocent untried people, quite similar to Nazi Extermination Camps where habeas rights similarly were removed by dirty rotten lawyers, who were actually criminals with legal degrees who made concentration camps and murder legal for undesirables.
I remind you of the Judges Trial so that today while you feel elevated above the law, enough so to first conceal and then attempt to dismiss complaints against yourself, in drunken and high delusions of grandeur, that one day you will be tried for these crimes as Justice is restored and even the Nazi lawyers and judges had their day in the infamous Judges Trial at the Nuremberg Trials. I await hearing your defenses from behind the glass.
Truly, and I mean this FIGURATIVELY not LITERALLY, I hope this letter feels
like a bomb in your car and you may live with your family in similar trepidation that one
day your world will end, when your scam ends and you are tried in a fair and impartial
court, free of conflict ( you know the thing your supposed to be protecting ) where
hopefully you will serve the remainder of your life contemplating the magnanimity of the
damage you have done to my family, my shareholders, those you have embroiled in your
crimes like Ms. Anderson, those victims of your crimes that appear lining up with each
new Judiciary Committee, all those who lost homes or 401k’s from lawyers schemes in
an unregulated capacity free to commit financial crimes, as the REGULATOR, YOU was
naught more than a criminal in on the crimes.
Most DisRespectfully Yours,
Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL
Uview.com, Inc. – DL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL
Iviewit.com LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation
cc/ec:
Roy L. Reardon
Chairman Monday, December 14, 2009
New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee
Re: YOUR CONTINUED INSANITY IN HANDLING COMPLAINTS AGAINST YOURSELF,
ALAN W. FRIEDBERG AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN A TWELVE COUNT TWELVE
TRILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT LEGALLY RELATED TO A WHISTLEBLOWER
CAUSING MASS LIABILITY YOU ARE CONCEALING FROM THE STATE AND
PEOPLE OF NEW YORK DIRECTLY RESULTING FROM YOUR CONTINUED
CRIMINAL CONDUCT
roy reardon
Iviewit Holdings , Inc.
Iviewit Technologies, Inc.
Source:
www.iviewit.tv
r
Much More on Roy L. Reardon Coming Soon.
r Iviewit Holdings, Eliot Bernstein,
Monday, December 7, 2009
Eliot Bernstein Says "If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer"
" MADOFF + STANFORD + DREIER + SATYAM + FISERV + ALBERT HU = PROSKAUER ROSE & FOLEY & LARDNER
p
Foley & Lardner partner Patricia J. (Trish) Lane represented FISERV, sue Foley, read on.
Investors who have been burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams.
I personally have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR scam that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM.
The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes and evidence, including a car-bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt trying to expose Madoff in a world without regulation.
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford’s attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer’s assets for recovery.
First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings.
Then at hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by him and Proskauer, his butt on fire. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer.
Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE also in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier, brought in through Raymond A. Joao of Meltzer Lippe after putting 90+ patents of mine in his own name, is also a defendant in the Federal Case.
r
The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER & A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visit http://www.iviewit.tv .
The Federal Court cases
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket 08-4873-cv – 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.
( ) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York"
r
Source of Post
http://formerlyaffluent.com/2009/04/21/the-worst-of-the-worst/
r
p
Foley & Lardner partner Patricia J. (Trish) Lane represented FISERV, sue Foley, read on.
Investors who have been burned in these scams should start to seek redress from the lawyers who were involved with these scams.
I personally have been trying to notify regulators and authorities of a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR scam that is putting states like New York and Florida at huge risk, as well as, companies like Intel, Lockheed, SGI and IBM.
The states and companies involved in the fraud fail to acknowledge the risk exposing shareholders and citizens to impending liabilities. Investigators, courts and federal agents ignoring the crimes and evidence, including a car-bombing attempt on my life. I know how Harry Markopolos felt trying to expose Madoff in a world without regulation.
Did I hear Proskauer Rose is involved in Madoff (involved many clients too) and acted as Allen Stanford’s attorney. Investors who lost money in these scams should start looking at the law firm Proskauer’s assets for recovery.
First, Proskauer partner Gregg Mashberg claims Madoff is a financial 9/11 for their clients, if they directed you to Madoff sue them. Then, Proskauer partner Thomas Sjoblom former enforcement dude for SEC and Allen Stanford attorney, declares PARTY IS OVER to Stanford employees and advises them to PRAY, this two days before SEC hearings.
Then at hearings, he lies with Holt to SEC saying she only prepared with him but fails to mention Miami meeting at airport hanger. Then Sjoblom resigns after SEC begins investigation and sends note to SEC disaffirming all statements made by him and Proskauer, his butt on fire. If you were burned in Stanford sue Proskauer.
Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner are also in a TRILLION dollar FEDERAL LAWSUIT legally related to a WHISTLEBLOWER CASE also in FEDERAL COURT. Marc S. Dreier, brought in through Raymond A. Joao of Meltzer Lippe after putting 90+ patents of mine in his own name, is also a defendant in the Federal Case.
r
The Trillion Dollar suit according to Judge Shira Scheindlin is one of PATENT THEFT, MURDER & A CAR BOMBING. For graphics on the car bombing visit http://www.iviewit.tv .
The Federal Court cases
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Docket 08-4873-cv – 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.
( ) John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York"
r
Source of Post
http://formerlyaffluent.com/2009/04/21/the-worst-of-the-worst/
r
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)