Steven C. Krane of Proskauer Rose is NOT worth ANY Lawyer of the Year, Steven Krane is a Criminal.

Steven Krane is Connected to Judith Kaye, is Part of an Investigation over a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft and

Now Lawyers USA Claims Steven Krane to Be Lawyer of the Year. Did Steven Krane pay Lawyers USA for this Grandeous Recognition?

Apparently Lawyers USA loved that Steven Krane can keep the FTC in their place and keep the FTC’s “red flags rule” from applying to the legal profession. Another Words Consumers, Victims ... you Lose and Lawyers win and have no accountability to how they treat you along the way.

The Question is Who is LawyersUSAOnline.com and does anyone even care who they name Lawyer of the Year. Well it seems that Dolan Media Company Owner of Lawyers USA does not Know that Steven Krane is a Trillion Dollar Liability to Proskauer Rose and is a VERY bad choice as Lawyer of the Year and Directly Questions the Credibility of Dolan Media Company - Jeff Saucier the registrant of the Lawyer USA Domain Name, and the Big Wigs at Dolan Media Company.

James P. Dolan
John C. Bergstrom
Anton J. Christianson
Jacques Massicotte
George Rossi
Arthur F. Kingsbury
Lauren Rich Fine

Proskauer Rose and Steven Krane in Particular must have a whole lot of connections some how to one or two of these folks, company connections, people connections... I mean can't they Google and Read the TRUTH about Steven Krane of Proskauer Rose, If they could they would NEVER have said Steven C. Krane was Lawyer of the Year. What a Joke.

Well We intend to find out the Connections with all this. If you have any information email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com there has to be way more to this Story.... anyway read the Following Post for more TRUTH on Steven C. Krane.

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT COURT ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION OF KRANE

KRANE COMPLAINT TO NEW YORK SUPREME COURT FIRST DEPARTMENT

Steven Krane - the Attorney's Attorney
Providing Legal Advice to the Proskaur Rose Law Firm.

Steven Krane is the Kind of Guy that makes sure Victims, Inventors, and pretty much ever Non-Lawyer has NO Rights and he makes sure they get no Due Process.

Proskaur.com Bio in Part..
"Steven Krane is a Partner in the Litigation & Dispute Resolution Department, co-head of the Law Firm Practice Group, concentrating in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility, and is Proskauer's General Counsel, responsible for providing professional legal advice to the firm.

Steven represents law firms and individual lawyers in a variety of professional matters, including rendering opinions and counseling them on a daily basis on a broad range of professional matters including conflicts of interest, client confidentiality, cross-border legal practice issues, partnership disputes, internal investigations, ancillary businesses and alternative business structures for law firms. In addition, he defends law firms in litigated proceedings involving legal malpractice and other civil claims, represents individual lawyers before grievance and disciplinary committees and assists lawyers in disputes concerning admission to the Bar.

For 14 years, he has led the New York State Bar Association committee that is responsible for formulating the ethical rules governing New York lawyers. In 2007, he was appointed by Chief Judge Kaye to be co-chair of the New York Judicial Institute on Professionalism in the Law. He served as vice-chair of the NYSBA Special Committee on the Law Governing Firm Structure and Operation (the “MacCrate Committee”), chaired the successor to that committee, the Special Committee on Multidisciplinary Practice, and was recently named Vice-Chair of the International Bar Association Committee on Multidisciplinary Practices. "

More Gibberish at Source of Link
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/steven-krane/

www.Iviewit.TV

Former New York State Bar President and member of Disciplinary Committees and Ethics boards nationwide. Ordered for investigation of conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety by the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department.

The investigation has so far been thwarted, through further conflicts in New York, typical New York crooked politics but being from the Windy City, so named for corrupt politics, this will be New York's Greylord.

It was learned that conflict in New York led all the way to Chief Judge Judith Kaye, you guessed it, married to a Proskauer partner, a partner like Krane, Stephen Kaye, G0d now prancing upon his recently departed soul although he was soulless while living towards the end, a partner who was instantly added to newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department (formed instantly after learning of Iviewit inventions), although he had no history in IP law.

Judge Judy Kaye is also conflicted with Steven Krane, as he was her former Clerk.

Steven Krane attempts to use influence peddling like never before seen in Gotham to earn his Proskauer intellectual property partnership wings by blocking Iviewit never revealing his conflicts, until two years into the complaints when news of his conflicts surfaced.

Steven Krane and Judith Kaye (Judge Judy is now the proud conflicted owner of her late husband Stephen Kaye's Proskauer shares of Iviewit) then had to bury the New York Supreme Court ordered investigation against them and the Proskauer partners, and in a feat unsurpassed in the annals or anals of New York, he ass kisses or offers it for the taking widely, to evade the investigation without even having to give a statement in his defense.

After five Supreme Court Justices unanimously voted for an INVESTIGATION, Stephen Krane, Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Anthony Joao, did not even have to provide a response to that court, nor provide one to the department charged with the investigations.

Instead those disciplinary departments wrote Iviewit on how they were going to dismiss it without investigation based on that he was a nice guy basically.

It was as if the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department, was actually doing his defense, as they tendered all letters on his behalf, he did not answer a single question or put forth a statement in his defense.

You guessed it, the First Department and the Second Department are controlled by Proskauer attorneys, those charged with investigating the conflicts, upon a little scratch of the surface were also found in conflict with the matters, Steven Krane and Judith Kaye, and yet they continued handling the complaints against Proskauer and its partners.

So assured that top down control of the courts could never be penetrated with Judith Kaye and Stephen Krane controlling them that they acted as if they were above the law.

Perhaps they are above the law, in crime festered New York but it is time for We the People to Hold Steven Krane Accountable for What he has done and what it has cost the life, livliehood and quality of life of So Many.

It is time to file complaints, to file charges and to make Steven Krane of Proskauer Rose answer for his Illegal - UnEthical Behavior.

Why was Iviewit confronted to try and evade the investigations of the New York Courts and not the court that ordered it.

The answer, they could not answer the court with the results of the investigation, as no investigation was ever done and they tried to claim dismissing the case on review was equal to an investigation.

No witnesses were called, no evidence submitted tested,
these guys did not even have to tender a response.

How much payola do you think that it costs to buy off three court ordered investigations?

With the help of Judge Judy Kaye and some very large illegal gains from the stolen technologies to make people obfuscate their public office duties, they have succeeded but for the moment at evading charges.

Steven Krane stands as the most despicable man in the history of legal ethics, currently found trying to amend laws to protect him and others from prosecution.

Perhaps Ken Lay hired him to write some laws to prevent loss of his estate from death or the Bush group has him rewriting war codes to justify torture and protect from prosecution.

Either way, there may soon be a lot of Proskauer Rose and other corrupted lawyers who will answer to We the People. As Attorney Corruption, Court Payoffs, Dirty Lawyers BEING above the LAW because of their money and influence, those days are OVER.

Krane Complaint First Department Exposing Conflicts and Violations of Public Office.
Steven Krane wrote his own defense of his bar complaint, failing to disclose his conflicting positions at the disciplinary department and further concealing them in an effort to deny he was caught, this little lie cost him orders for investigation.

Lies and Gibberish of Steven C. Krane Proskauer Rose
Steven Krane was busted immediately following that letter, after Clerk of the Court, Catherine O’Hagan Wolf identified that Steven Krane was in fact a member of the disciplinary committee that his letter denied, in fact she sat on several committee’s with Steven Krane and was stunned that he would be handling a complaint against himself or his partners, she suggested Iviewit file the Motion with the Court that led to the unanimous ruling for investigation.

In November 2007 Steven Krane's buddy at the First Department, Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the Supreme Court of New York First Department, DDC. Thomas Cahill is busted for burying and whitewashing complaints against attorneys that he is charged with investigating.

It gets really bad for Steven Krane as the informant is an insider, a 62 yr old black female attorney, who is victimized, physically assaulted and terminated for her bravery to stand up to wrongdoings at the Department. In a $100M Federal Lawsuit, she names Iviewit in P. 97 of the complaint, as a cause of termination.

Thomas Cahill and Steven Krane and their scam exposed from the inside, Holy Cow Batman, Gotham Uppy Ups are going down, The New York Law Journal writes a story exposing Cahill and others for derailing complaints against attorneys, exactly what Iviewit is claiming to the Feds.

The New York Times follows with an even more devastating article and now New York is on fire, Kerik, the whole criminal political crime family composed of scumbag lawyers, judges and politicians is flaming downward, hell awaits, my smiling face to greet them.

All this started by an investigative reporter at Expose Corrupt Courts, a one ballsy Frank Brady, in a time of journalistic lack of integrity and complacency with the corruptions read by propaganda readers like Blitzer (whose his daddy), Sanchez (where did this guy get his journalistic wings) and other script readers, Brady emerges as something of a Ben Bradlee, a Woodward, a Bernstein.

Source:
http://www.iviewit.tv/
Eliot Bernstein Site on the Iviewit Stolent Patent

ALL of this And Dolan Media, Lawyers USA Claims
Steven Krane of Proskauer Rose to Be Lawyer of the Year.
What a Crock that is.

More on the Iviewit Story at
www.DeniedPatent.com
Steven C. Krane, Lawyer USA, Steven Krane, NY Supreme Court Complaint, Conflict of Interest, First Department Investigation, Whitewashing Complaints, Thomas Cahill


R

Iviewit Rebuttal to Thomas Cahill - New York State Bar - Kenneth Rubenstein Bar Complaint

"REBUTTAL OF IVIEWIT TO THE NEW YORK STATE BAR OF
RESPONSE OF KENNETH RUBENSTEIN AUTHORED BY STEVEN KRANE"


P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
July 2, 2003

Re: Rebuttal of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Response
to Complaint of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., Docket 2003.0531

Dear Mr. Cahill:
By way of introduction, I am Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc.
and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Company”) with a background of which the Company
invites you to view at http://www.iviewit.com/management.htm , and I write to rebutt all
those material feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of Kenneth
Rubenstein, Esq. (“Respondent”) to the Company’s New York Bar Complaint of
February 26 (“Complaint”).

Moreover, the facts of the Complaint find Respondent so uncloaked that he resorts to
disingenuously traversing from tall tales of retaliation to some irrelevant litigation, to
stories of a “failed dotcom company looking for someone to blame,” and even to the
personal attacks on the founder and principal inventor of the Company, whose passion for
his inventions confounds the mind of Respondent whose personal, financial, and other
ambitions rise above all, to the detriment of his clients.

Furthermore, Respondent continues this transparent discourse and all the while maintaining “The only thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer,”1 which the Company shall incite in the minds of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee that such a statement by Respondent could not be farther from the truth, as evidenced by Section I to Section XII, infra.

Prior to Section I to Section XII, infra, however, the first feint we need to address, and as
Respondent has chosen to apprise you, is that the Company and Respondent’s employer,
Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), are parties to that certain litigation titled Proskauer
Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the
15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001)
(“Litigation”) that, as Respondent is aware, yet prefaces and attributes the Complaint to
said Litigation, bears not one iota of relevance to the specific allegations contained in the
Company’s Complaint.

Second, another important feint to correct, and wherein Respondent hopes that First
Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee fails to see the forest from the trees, is that the Company is not now nor has ever been a so called “dotcom” company, but rather is a designer and developer of video scaling and imaging technologies where, in combination and among other things, said technologies have the capability of “panning and zooming” on any image or any image within a video without degradation to the quality of that image (where degradation is termed “pixelation” to those skilled in the art).

Additionally, the Company technologies are targeted to device original equipment
manufacturers (“OEMs”) who, when individually, or in combination with other third
party hardware, firmware, and/or software, shall include them in OEM products such as,
but not limited to, cable set top boxes, satellite set top boxes, analog-to-digital converter
boxes, next generation DVD players, digital cameras, personal video recorders, and
personal computers; alternatively the Company has the option of exclusively contributing
said essential technologies to the multimedia patent pools known as MPEG 2 (digital
compression according the digital television standard), MPEG 4 (another compression
standard at a lower bit rate, and wherein interactive objects may be embedded), and DVD
(“digital video disc”) player-drive-codec and the discs themselves.

Third, and most disingenuously, Respondent attempts to point to the two and one half
percent (2.5%) interest in, an interest that Proskauer paid a nominal, par value price for,
and that was supposedly in return for adoption by the MPEG 2 patent pool of the
Company’s essential inventions, the Company’s direct, 92.03% owned, subsidiary,
Iviewit Technologies, Inc., that more specifically translates into a one and ninety nine one
hundredths of a percent (1.99%) fully diluted interest in lower valued Class B Non-
Voting shares of the Company’s direct subsidiary, as a motivation for Proskauer Rose to see
the Company succeed, yet fails to apprise First Judicial Department Departmental
Disciplinary Committee that in Respondent’s stewardship of the MPEG 2 patent pool,
which presently generates royalties in the nine figures, according to industry observers,
and that once digital television and the content there with assumes a penetration rate in
U.S. households akin to analog color television that said royalties from MPEG 2 shall rise
into the trillions of dollars, and much to the benefit of Respondent in his role as counsel,
by his admission2, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator, and
Proskauer Rose, thereby dwarfing any potential realized gain from the nominally priced equity position in the Company’s direct subsidiary.

Clearly, by this analysis, the Company suggests that Respondent and his author, Steven C. Krane (“Author”), continue to apply their skills sets towards, physics and technology licensing, and legal ethics and dispute resolution, respectively, as their prospects of future careers as financial analysts have diminished as a result of this poorly attempted feint in the response of Respondent.

Fourth, and an equally poorly analyzed feint, is Respondent’s reference to a letter
presented in his deposition to that certain Litigation on November 20, 2002, wherein such
Litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes,
seemingly attempting to engage Respondent’s services future services, but by viewing an
electronic copy and right clicking the mouse of a IBM compatible personal computer and
selecting “properties” it is clear to Respondent that said letter’s date of creation was April
25, 2002, which was designed as a means for which to allow Respondent to “save his
soul” by reaffirming prior statements to potential licensees, and inapposite to
Respondent’s assumed intention (see Section IX Subsection A and Exhibit O – Statement
of CEO Lamont).

Lastly, Mr. Thomas Cahill, and as Respondent would have you believe, this is NOT the
Complaint of Eliot I. Bernstein, but of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation)
funded in total of approximately Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) by prominent investors and entertainment professionals alike, including, but not limited to: Wayne Huizenga, Wayne Huizenga Jr., Alan Epstein, Esq. and Michele Mulrooney, Esq. of Armstrong
Hirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer of Los Angeles. Cal., Kenneth Anderson, CPA,
Donald Kane (formerly Managing Director of Goldman Sachs), James Osterling, James
Armstrong, Ellen DeGenres, Alan Young, Allan Shapiro (Atlas Entertainment), Mitchell
Welsch (Vice President of UBS Paine Webber), and Jeffrey Friedstein (Vice President of
Goldman Sachs), Caroline P. Rogers, Esq. and many others.
p
Full Article - Full Rebuttal to Thomas Cahill. Part of the US Court Smackdown
on the Iviewit Inventors in the Trillion Dollar Patent Heist.
http://www.deniedpatent.com/2009/12/rebuttal-of-iviewit-to-new-york-state.html
p