Response to why press was taken down by news wire http://www.c10n.info/archives/325 by Data Compression News Wire
“The Data Compression News Blog which published the story was asked by Proskauer to take down this story, another journalist and his publishing company, from Portfolio Media, Inc. was threatened with litigation by Proskauer. The author of the story Sachin has requested that his comments and statements not be published but I have published my response to some of his questions regarding Proskauer’s false claims. The answer below.”
—————————- Original Message —————————- Subject: Sachin Re Proskauer demanding you take down the news story From: iviewit@iviewit.tvDate: Sat, January 21, 2006 10:05 amTo: “Sachin Garg” schngrg@gmail.com>Cc: “iviewit@iviewit.tv” iviewit@iviewit.tv> erik.larson@portfoliomedia.com caroline@cprogers.com barryb@rockitcargo.com andy@rockitcargo.com mmulrooney@ahjtw.com aepstein@ahjtw.com rich.rosman@verizon.net————————————————————————–
Sachin,
First thank you and I am sorry that writing a news story has put you in the middle of Patentgate but the name should give some warning as to just how big of a story is unfolding and just how frightened the law firms are of public awareness of the story. The others copied were shareholders and friends.
First, I have published only the actual news story from your site at my blog, I will not publish further without permission of yours but that was already a published article. No court has decided in Proskauer’s favor any of the allegations, as no court has heard the case or tried the criminal aspects of any of the petitions, clearly this serves as NO victory to either side. The only court case I am aware of is the billing case in Florida, where it is now learned that the companies sued have stolen intellectual properties in them and were identically named to Iviewit entities, this was part of the original attempt to steal the inventions. That case was a fiasco for Proskauer, the judge would not let the case expose the criminal elements, and after denying a counter complaint that contained the allegations, the judge relieved two law firms of Iviewit on the eve of trial and ruled a default judgement for Iviewi’s failure in 15 days to obtain replacement counsel. Again, this case was limited to billing issues and it was not until almost two years later that the companies sued had stolen patents in Brian Utley’ss name in thhhem. We learned this information from the patent office, who reviewed Iviewit attorney intellectual property documents from the law firms, including Proskauer, that had falsified inventors, owners and assignees on them. Immediately the Patent Office OED Director Harry I. Moatz began formal investigation of the attorneys and began to aid Iviewit in getting their patents into suspensions by petitioning the Commissioner of Patents that Fraud on the United States Patent Office had occured. That investigation remains ongoing.
The only victories, if you can call them that, that Proskauer may want to inform you of, are at the state bars in New York and Florida. Yet victory may not be the word, conflict of interest and violation of public offices, are the correct words. In both state bars, Proskauer partners were found after several years, to be handling bar complaints against their partners while holding Supreme Court Bar Associations positions that conflicted with their personal involvement in the matters. Upon finding these conflicts, in Florida the matter was brought to the Supreme Court of Florida who began to review the case and when they found that theconflicts elevated to the President of Flabar and other inside employees, so they simply denied to hear the case and matters against Proskauer and their partners caught. A way out of the mess that would have caused considerable embarrasement to the Florida Supreme Court so they just denied to hear it, this is a no win for either side. It is strange they took this course but the Florida Supreme Court appears conflicted with Florida Bar as it is directly under their control and a part of the Supreme Court. This led to Iviewit filing a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States to force Florida to prosecute those caught in verified conflicts of interest, the Supreme Court denied the petition. None of this is a court victory, obviously that would take a court to hear the matters and then decide after reviewing the facts. Not the case but I would like to hear Proskauer claim that either the Supreme Court of Florida or the United Supreme Court Case was decided in their favor. This is an untrue statement so I believe they will try to dance versus confront the fact that the case can still be filed and heard in court. This case scares the Iviewit shareholders, as they were denied rights to file complaints against Supreme Court of Florida bar members who had violated public offices and the bar then refused complaints against those officers caught and verified in conflict by the bar. This means that public officers caught violating office and who have formal written complaints against them, can simply position within the bar to handle the complaints against themselves and refuse docketing of complaints against these matters, quite inapposite the Florida Constitutions intent on setting up a bar. Bar complaints were filed against all of the following and were refused formal docketing by the bar: Matthew Triggs (violated a public office rule regarding representing anyone before the bar in a blackout period for officers of the bar, he represented Wheeler in such blackout period), Christopher Wheeler (intitial complaint was filed and never heard by Florida Bar so no victory for Proskauer) subsequent complaints were not docketed for formal procedures to take place, Anthony Boggs, Kelly Overstreet Johnson (she was President of Bar and handling the case matters against Wheeler and forgot to tell us she worked directly under Wheeler’s brother, James Wheeler, at small real estate firm in Boca)and Eric Turner for violating internal rules of Flabar. These complaints are oftantamount interest to citizens of the US as no legal power allows the bar to dismiss bar complaints filed by Iviewit shareholders against its members without formal docketing and disposition. Reminiscent ofcommunist Russia where complaints against management were dealt with by “off with your head.” Yet this case behooves the question of just how high up this fiasco goes in the administration and within the legal system. Yet in all those bar complaints, including the original Wheeler, all handled by officers caught in conflict, Proskauer cannot say that any of them were heard or decided in their favor for this is simply untrue and your review of the matters will so find.
In New York same game, different players, but with a big twist. At the same time we found the Florida Bar Proskauer conflicts, we found one in New York. Past President Steven C. Krane (former law clerk for Chief Judge of the New York courts Judith Kaye), a Proskauer partner and former President of the New York State Bar Association had defended Kenneth Rubenstein in his bar complaint at the Supreme Court of New York Appellate Division: First Department – Departmental Disciplinary Committee, against complaints filed by the Iviewit shareholders. Krane also is the most prominent member of the disciplinary system in New York, including holding prominent posts at the First Department and he took the case while being excluded under his former position (prohibitions against representation for one year after) as President of the Bar and his active roles at First Department at the time the complaints were filed. Before taking the defense of Rubenstein, Krane failed to seek any waivers or conflict of interest checks from the Bar or First Department DDC and certainly there is cause for concern here. That concern led to a petition with the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division: First Department and after review by five justices, Rubenstein, Krane and Joao were ordered for formal IVESTIGATION by that court. The matters were transferred to the Second Department Disciplinary Committee who decided to try and dismiss the cases on review and skirt the court ordered investigation. Upon recieving a letter stating such we found that the case worker at Second Department DDC had admitted conflicts with Steven Krane and we filed complaints against her. These complaints were not formally docketed and disposed of in accordance with law, she denied to file complaints against herself, acting as chief counsel for that department. We took the matters to Lawrence DiGiovana the Chairman of Second Department DDC and he refused to file charges against chief counsel for failing to docket the complaints, and a complaint was filed against him. Also, and still under investigation, is a complaint against Thomas Cahill of the Chief Counsel of the First Department DDC for his involvement with Krane that caused the conflicts to go unchecked originally.
At that time, it was learned that Krane who clerked for Judith Kaye (and she is one of the most powerful members of the disciplinary committee)had far more conflict with this relation. The reason, Judith Kaye whose office refused to even answer the calls after the mess began, although they did take submissions from Iviewit, was found to be married to a Proskauer partner Stephen Krane. Both Krane and Stephen Kaye are members of the newly formed Proskauer intellectual property department and this means from the Chief Judge down through all of the disciplinarydepartments they control, New York cannot hear the matters without bias and prejudice. As Krane, Rubenstein, Stephen Krane (and through marriage Judith Kaye) are all conflicted and in fact Iviewit shareholders, their interest should never have come near these complaints, but instead direct involvement is found. Judith Kaye also has interest in defending her husband and former law clerk from facing these charges as they could end up serving lengthy federal sentences and total loss of assets, especially if a RICO is brought against Proskauer and those allegations have been made to the proper federal investigators of the matters and are being investigated formally. Yet, you may ask what happened to the Court ordered investigations of Krane, Rubenstein and Joao, the answer is that they were railroaded by the Second Department DDC and Second Department who tried to dismiss them on review and avoid the formal court ordered investigation of five justices. This will now lead to the next 5 United States Supreme Court petitions to be filed by the Iviewit shareholders. In New York it is futile to try and get the matters investigated as court ordered because the conflicts rise to the top, so we will beginpetitioning the Supreme Court shortly to force formal investigations and force the Bar to docket complaints against their members caught in the fiasco who refuse to file complaints against themselves. Again, in New York the only court that has heard the matters has ruled for formal investigation to be completed that has never occured. Even at the Second Department Proskauer cannot claim that a court heard their case and ruled in their favor as this is patently false and I would love to see that in the press. The Second Department tried to wiggle out with a dismissal on review but this means they never heard the case.
What is outrageous is that all of these lawyers accused fear the court room against one pro-se inventor, so they have to use every dirty legal trick to avoid the court, position in conflicts, abuse public offices, and then try to state that those are court room victories, how weak. The letters they have from the Florida Bar and New York departments trying to say Proskauer was not patent counsel or the likes are worthless, all tendered by people in conflict who have evaded prosecution through clever court politicking and perhaps payola and the likes. Again, it behooves the question of just how high up in the administration and legal community this crime elevates. Further, they have not been cleared in a single formal investigation by state, federal and international authorities. Ask Proskauer, if Eliot and Iviewit are wrong or liars, why are thier patents in suspension pending charges that Rubenstein and 8 others have committed fraud on the United States Patent & Trademark Offices. Why are all the other criminal investigations still underway? Why were you not able to win a decisive court room victory in the allegations of crimes (do not let them bore you trying to convince you the billing case they instituted vindicated them from federal, international or state crimes, those matters were never heard in that court).
Please address these issues with Proskauer. As to being told to take down a news story, it appears they fear the press and public disclosure. I would consult a lawyer as to what they can do but I do not think they can do much other than try to get a court order to take it down. You are astute to note that if they have nothing to worry about… Yet, they have a lot to worry about as again the truth being told will bring down the house and the crimes if prosecuted by the goverment are so voliminous as to cause federal prison sentences for all involved. They appear to be using the monies stolen from my technologies to buy off government seats, even within esteemed institutions such as Supreme Courts and state bars, to stave off the inevitable court room day where they have to face the evidences against them. Kudos to them for holding it off this far, yet it has just entangled so many more people and now to hold off the justice department and other investigators or try to derail those, would take cabinet level officers at the Commerce Dept, the Patent Dept, the FBI, the DOJ and others and this would inevitably lead to a Patentgate for those in the administration and courts found to have violated thier public offices or laws. How high did it go is the question asked by Iviewit shareholders and others and until a conflict free court is found Iviewit does not wish to disclose information relating to the elements we are already aware of and our view of how high this goes. It is interesting to note, the Florida billing case was judged by Jorge Labarga who is the Florida judge who threw the election of Gore v. Bush to the Supreme Court who decided quite unconstitutionally the President, instead of allowing for a recount of the bogus ballots. The threads are deep, I do not want your life to be jeopardized, one look at my family’s car blown up should scare you, knowing that the fire inspectors of FLorida have already determined incinary devices and accelarants to have been used. I was evicted from my house in Florida last year by a court, Labarga’s courthouse, W. Palm Beach, where all of our rights were denied in yet another antict to destroy our ability to bring these matters to the public. Yet, as you have probably read at our site, I fear no evil and so I pursue with all the others who wait for the truth to be told and our inventions returned. Have you called Crossbow Ventures for their story and what has happened after their meetings with the Inspector General of the Small Business Administration.
I would love to see the letters Proskauer sent to both you and Erik.
Best regards ~ Eliot
