Monday, July 3, 2017

Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein Interview with Disbar the Florida Bar ~ Les Winston The Biz 880am regarding Trillion Dollar Fed RICO Lawsuit against Florida Bar, FL Supreme Court & Justice Jorge Labarga

Disbar the Florida Bar Radio Host Les Winston interviews Iviewit Technologies Inventor Eliot Ivan Bernstein regarding illegal activities at the Florida Supreme Court, Florida Bar & Judge Jorge Labarga involving Proskauer Rose & Foley &; Lardner firm

World-renowned Inventor of Digital Video & Imaging Mathematical Scaling Formulas, Eliot Bernstein discusses with radio talk show host Les Winston of Disbar the Florida Bar his Trillion Dollar Federal RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, naming the Florida Bar, Florida Supreme Court & Labarga as Defendants. The suit marked "legally" related by Judge Shira Scheindlin to a NY Whistleblower suit filed by a Supreme Court of NY Staff Attorney, Christine C. Anderson, Esq. Bernstein's Amended Complaint @
Anderson alleges the NY Attorney Disciplinary Dept, responsible for the oversight of WallStreet lawyers, has been whitewashing and cleaning disciplinary complaints against attorneys, including US Attorney's, DA's & ADA's. Anderson named a "Cleaner" from the Ethics Dept of the NY Supreme Court, Naomi Goldstein, supervisor at the NY Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee. No wonder WallStreet melted down & attorney regulators go unpunished for failures after causing massive damage to the American People, only to then leave government positions for cushy law firm partnerships. Anderson claimed staff attorney, Nicole Corrado Esq., on her way to testify at deposition supporting Anderson's suit was threatened & intimated by a Sr. Court Official regarding giving testimony, creating Federal Obstruction of Justice, Witness Tampering & more by Court Officials.
Bernstein suing the FL & NY Supreme Courts, State Bars & Disciplinary Agencies, claims conflicted members of the courts, partners from Proskauer Rose LLP law firm, the main conspirator in Bernstein's case along with law firm Foley & Lardner, illegally handled complaints against partners while holding official title with the courts & disciplinary agencies. In NY, Bernstein's allegations led to unanimous consent of 5 justice of the NY Supreme Court to have former NY State Bar Association President, Steven Krane, a Proskauer partner, ordered for investigation for conflicts & the appearance of impropriety. Proskauer's Kenneth Rubenstein, the sole (soulless) patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC, ordered for investigation along with attorney Raymond Joao, who claims to have put 90+ patents into his own name. Bernstein claims patents filed by Joao were during & after the time Iviewit retained Joao to patent inventions for Bernstein, Joao patented them for himself instead. After termination as Iviewit counsel, Joao worked for infamous convicted felon Marc S. Dreier, sentenced July 13, 2009, to 20 years in prison. Thomas Cahill, former Chief Counsel of the First Dept whom Anderson alleges to be the ringleader at the First Dept, ordered for Special Inquiry. Cahill's investigation relates to Krane's conflicts & Cahill's role in aiding and abetting the RICO Criminal Enterprise, which Bernstein claims is composed mainly of corrupt mob type law firms. Anderson under oath in Scheindlin's US Fed Court stated "Cleaner" Goldstein was cleaning complaints against "favored law firms and lawyers".
NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo fingered by Anderson & Bernstein for illegal representation of the accused NY State Officials in violation of his public office duties. Cuomo represents the State Officials both professionally & personally on the broke NY State taxpayers' dime and Bernstein alleges the NY Attorney General is guilty of Felony Title 18 Obstruction of Justice. Obstruction caused by Cuomo's conflicting his offices with scienter from investigating the accused State Defendants they represent while simultaneously failing to call in a non-conflicted investigator to investigate the Defendants on behalf of the People of NY.
Cuomo is duty bound by Public Officer Law 17(2)(b), which dictates the Attorney General not represent State Defendants when conflict with their offices exist. Yet Cuomo not only represents the State Defendants when conflict exists in both Bernstein and Anderson's lawsuit but has failed to call in any outside investigator to investigate the State Defendants, his clients, creating a block to prosecution & obstructing justice. Cuomo, Eliot Spitzer & the NY Attorney General's office are Defendants in Bernstein's suit. The fact they are Defendants makes the continued representation of the State Defendants by the Attorney General's office bizarre and further illegal. Bernstein filed criminal complaints with the Department of Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine, the US Attorney General Eric Holder & others regarding the criminal activities of both the NY and FL Officials.
Bernstein is the inventor of digital imaging & video technologies that revolutionized the Internet, Television & Digital Imaging, the technologies valued over a Trillion Dollars over the 20 yr patent life. Bernstein's patents are currently on Suspension with the US Patent & Trademark Office by the Commissioner of Patents while the Office of Enrollment & Discipline (OED) Director at the US Patent Office, the Federal Patent Bar, investigates Bernstein's attorneys for crimes including Fraud Upon the US Patent & Trademark Office. Bernstein claims Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Stephen Lucchesi claimed to be working with Harry I. Moatz, Director of the OED investigating allegations of crimes against the US & more, Bernstein claims Moatz confirmed collaboration with the FBI.
Bernstein calls for the end of attorney self regulation & self discipline by their peers, which has obviously failed, in favor of charging attorneys with criminal acts to criminal prosecutors, warning that victims of attorneys, judges and prosecutors who file with attorney run state attorney regulators are doing themselves a disfavor. Bernstein claims the attorneys gain advantage through using the state disciplinary agencies, defending themselves in conflict and gaining confidential information against them, while feathering their caps with conflicted decisions on Supreme Court letterhead. Bernstein along with Anderson, testified before the NY Senate Judiciary Committee in NY @
& Chaired by Hon. Senator John Sampson, the hearings to investigate allegations of corruption in the NY Supreme Court Appellate Divisions. Hearings remain ongoing & claims made by NY Senators attending to begin a Task Force to investigate victims' claims of legal process abuse.
According to Bernstein, one look only at the recent plethora of criminal activity in the stock market & Ponzi schemes to see that all of these schemes are run by law firms. Bernstein claims the Ponzis are illegal money laundering operations for monies illegally obtained by the law firms Criminal RICO Enterprise activities. Bernstein points to recent schemes such as Bernard Madoff, former "Sir" Allen Stanford, Marc S. Dreier & Greenberg Traurig's involvement directly in a Ponzi, as evidence that lawyers are behind the schemes & directly involved in intentionally creating subterfuge of the regulatory agencies that could have prevented these schemes. Greenberg, recall was central to Abramoff's fraud and linked to the Stanford Regulatory Failures.
Other Defendants, reported to the SEC for alleged Shareholder Frauds relating to the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST include Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., AOL Inc. (NYSE: AOL), Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC), Silicon Graphics, Inc. (delisted NYSE: SGI) & successor Silicon Graphics International (NASDAQ: SGI), Sony Corporation (NYSE/ADR: SNE) , Lockheed Martin Corporation (NYSE: LMT), Ernst & Young Global Limited @
and FINAL SEC FBI and more COMPLAINT Against Warner Bros Time Warner AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf
Information regarding these Ponzi schemes and the relation to the 
Iviewit crimes @
Information regarding Greenberg Traurig's involvement in a recent Ponzi, "The American Lawyer is reporting today, May 13, 2010, that the law firm of Greenberg Traurig has been sued for its willful participation in and facilitation of what it knew to be an illegal Ponzi scheme" @ Greenberg represents in conflict the Florida Bar and Florida Supreme Court Defendants in Bernstein's Trillion Dollar RICO and ANTITRUST lawsuit, as Greenberg was retained patent counsel by Bernstein & therefore acts wholly in violation of law representing Defendants in the matter.
Information re the Bernard Madoff, Stanford & Dreier connections to Defendant Proskauer @
o "Proskauer Rose and Partner Thomas Sjoblom Further Implicated in the Allen Stanford Ponzi Scheme, Failures of SEC in Stanford Cited Further Supporting Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein's Federal Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Claims"
o "Proskauer (Porksour) Rose Law Firm Going Down in Allen Stanford Ponzi, next the trail of money may lead to Iviewit Inventor Eliot Bernstein's stolen Trillion Dollar Patents" "Florida Bar Under Fire for Lack of Regulation in Robert Allen Stanford & Scott Rothstein Ponzi scheme, Kenneth Marvin defendant in Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Lawsuit". After reading the article, one wonders if the Florida Bar reported this liability in the Iviewit Multi Trillion Dollar Federal Lawsuit to State Auditors?
The legally related cases to Anderson are @

Cases @ New York Second Circuit
1. 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
2. Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.
3. Esposito v The State of New York, et al.
4. McKeown v The State of New York, et al.
Related Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY
5. 07cv09599 Anderson v The State of New York, et al. - WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT which other cases have been marked legally "related" to by Fed. Judge Shira A. Scheindlin @
6. 07cv11196 Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. @
7. 07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al. @
8. 08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.,
9. 08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al. @
10. 08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.,
11. 08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al. @
12. 08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al. @
13. 08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al. @
14. 08 cv 6368 John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York
15. 06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al
Eliot I. Bernstein
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. - FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. - DL
Uviewit Holdings, Inc. - DL, Inc. - DL, Inc. - FL, Inc. - DL
I.C., Inc. - FL LLC - DL
Iviewit LLC - DL
Iviewit Corporation - FL
Iviewit, Inc. - FL
Iviewit, Inc. - DL
Iviewit Corporation


Sunday, January 27, 2013

Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox Files an Amended Counterclaim in District of Nevada Civil Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, a Chilling Effect, Chill Speech, First Amendment Threat, Free Speech Threat, SLAPP Lawsuit Filed out of Las Vegas Nevada, against Pro Se Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, Anti-Corruption Blogger.

State of Nevada Chilling Effect Lawsuit against Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox.

District of Nevada Lawsuit Free Speech Threat, First Amendment Threat, Constitutional Rights Lawsuit, Fraud on Courts, Attorney Privilege, Malpractice, RICO Claims, Defamation Claims, and Lot's More.

Below is the Amended Counter Claim Filed by Counter Plaintiff Crystal Cox

For More on Nevada Chilling Effect Case, SLAPP Lawsuit, Free Speech Threat, First Amendment Threat, Constitutional Rights Filing Legal Case Documents, Click Below

Document List / Docket Filings

Friday, January 25, 2013

David Wang and Mark Vena were At Silicon Graphics Inc., I Believe.Silicon Graphics Inc. was Instrumental in the iViewit Technology Theft. Eliot Bernstein, Creditor, v. Silicon Graphics, Inc. Also Note Bruce Sewell then Intel, INTC, nor Apple General Counsel.

"Ch. 11 Proof of Claim by Eliot Bernstein, Creditor, v. Silicon Graphics, Inc, et al.

Ch. 11 Case Nos. 09-11700 thru 09-11714 Jointly Administered Under 09-11701,
Hon. Judge Martin Glen, US Bankruptcy Judge Follow Up of March 3, 2009 Phone Discussion; Responsible Business Judgments; Financial Accounting Standards Board “FASB” Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 Accounting for Contingencies - Reporting Requirements; Limited Time Offer

Dear US Bankruptcy Court Clerk of the Southern District of New York and Donlin Recano, Claims Agent: 
Enclosed for filing in this matter please find a signed Proof of Claim Form B 10 ( Official Form 10 ) ( 12/08 ) together in support of such Proof of Claim a URL link to a copy of my Emergency Motion and Petition dated April 9, 2009 @

In further support of such Proof of Claim, please see the following links of NDA violators and other pertinent contract information and related evidentiary links in support of such Proof of Claim:

My Amended Federal Complaint filed in the US District Court of the Southern District of New York which was Assigned to US District Judge Shira Scheindlin and was marked legally “related” by District Judge Shira Scheindlin to the federal Whistleblower case of Christine Anderson. Anderson blowing the whistle on public corruption in the NY First Department with my case presently on Appeal to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals under Docket No. 08-4873 cv and Anderson’s being scheduled for trial in the District Court;

The legally “related” Federal Whistleblower Case of Christine Anderson;

Patent Suspension Notice 1 from the US PTO;

Patent Suspension Notice 2 from the US PTO;

I, Eliot I. Bernstein, Petitioner, Creditor and Claimant herein against Silicon Graphics, Inc. et al., hereby further incorporate by reference in this Proof of Claim under Ch. 11 of the US Bankruptcy law any and all links, materials, references, evidentiary information, proprietary information and other at my website that specifically includes Intellectual Property information and other. 

from our telephone discussion on Tuesday, March 5, 2009, I wish to make several observations as part of this 24-hour limited time offer to enter sound and responsible business negotiations on behalf of the Intel Corporation. As you will note further herein, there is definite and certain action to be taken at the conclusion of the 24-hour limited time offer herein with such 24-hour period commencing upon 9:00am EST on Friday, March 06, 2009 and ending 9:00am EST on Saturday March 07, 2009. Thus, you may wish to pay particular attention herein.

As you will see, it is respectfully requested and suggested that you, Mr. Sewell, Senior Vice President - General Counsel of the Intel Corporation, will be making a sound and proper business decision herein by taking this matter and limited time offer to negotiate to your Chairman and CEO within 24-hours herein. Please read below to see the definite and certain action that I will be taking in the event you do not properly bring this matter to the Chairman and CEO within 24 hours for their response which will be due 48-hours after the ending of such 24-hour period.

As the original Owner and Inventor of backbone "technologies" and a business person myself, I was alarmed and shocked at your hostile resistance to commence sound, responsible business discussions in this matter and further alarmed at the hostile reaction you exhibited when I suggested speaking with the Chairman and the CEO of Intel Corporation in this matter. 

I respectfully suggest that you, Mr. D. Bruce Sewell, Esq., have admitted to failing and may be presently and currently failing in a variety of legal and ethical obligations under law and codes of conduct and as it relates to Intel and the rights of the shareholders and others in Intel and other interested parties who may incur liabilities. 

This failure centers around your admission that a "contingent" liability has not been booked and will not be booked on the records of Intel as it relates to my claims as Original Owner and Inventor of backbone technologies as set out further herein.

Remarkably, however, this admission by you Mr. Sewell during this phone discussion referenced above was made despite your further admission during the same conversation that you are personally familiar with our contracts that were signed with Real 3D, Inc. that were transferred with your acquisition of Real 3D and as stated by Tim Connolly when he transferred from Real 3D to Intel, our technologies and relations were now being handled by Lawrence S. Palley, Director of Business Development and further assuring by Palley with former Pres. Of Iviewit Brian G. Utley and others, that Iviewit’s NDA’s, Strategic Alliances and Licensing Agreements both signed and in draft with both Real 3D and Iviewit’s legal counsel were going to be honored and furthered with Intel’s use of the scaling imaging and video technologies they had already begun using. 

As Intel was also a 10% owner of Real 3D and engineers from Intel and Lockheed Martin were brought into Real 3D to evaluate the technologies that led to the agreements, we presume that Intel has had direct and binding knowledge since that original point of knowledge of possible and future litigation of the patents that you signed NDA’s to review, on or about 1999 and certainly when Mr. Palley began oversight of the Iviewit patent and intellectual property agreements inherited by Intel wholly.

Because it is possible that your failures in this matter are in part premised upon an improper interpretation of applicable FASB accounting rules, I have enclosed relevant sections of these rules for your further review: 

Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 Accounting for Contingencies rules for booking a "contingent" liability in this matter:

For the purpose of this Statement, a contingency is defined as an existing condition, situation, or set of circumstances involving uncertainty as to possible gain (hereinafter a “gain contingency”) or loss (hereinafter a “loss contingency”) to an enterprise that will ultimately be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. Resolution of the uncertainty may confirm the acquisition of an asset or the reduction of a liability or the loss or impairment of an asset or the incurrence of a liability.

4. Examples of loss contingencies include:

e. Pending or threatened litigation.

f. Actual or possible claims and assessments.

Litigation, Claims, and Assessments

The following factors, among others, must be considered in determining whether accrual and/or disclosure is required with respect to pending or threatened litigation and actual or possible claims and assessments:

a. The period in which the underlying cause (i.e., the cause for action) of the pending or threatened litigation or of the actual or possible claim or assessment occurred.

b. The degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome.

c. The ability to make a reasonable estimate of the amount of loss.

Please take note of the following FASB language:

By way of further example, an enterprise may believe there is a possibility that it has infringed on another enterprise’s patent rights, but the enterprise owning the patent rights has not indicated an intention to take any action and has not even indicated an awareness of the possible infringement. 

In that case, a judgment must first be made as to whether the assertion of a claim is probable. If the judgment is that assertion is not probable, no accrual or disclosure would be required. 

On the other hand, if the judgment is that assertion is probable, then a second judgment must be made as to the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome.

 If an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated, accrual of a loss is required by paragraph 8. If an unfavorable outcome is probable but the amount of loss cannot be reasonably estimated, accrual would not be appropriate, but disclosure would be required by paragraph 10. 

If an unfavorable outcome is reasonably possible but not probable, disclosure would be required by paragraph 10."

I respectfully Direct your focused attention to the following: "In that case, a judgment must first be made as to whether the assertion of the claim is probable." 

Surely it is "probable" that a claim will be asserted as claims have already been formally asserted in litigation and I remind you of prior communications with you whereby it is noted to notify your shareholders or any others with liability of these claims.

Then I Direct your focused attention to the following: "then a second judgment must be made as to the degree of probability of an unfavorable outcome." 

At the time of our recent discussion, I attempted on more than one occasion to suggest to you during this discussion that the claims I have currently asserted in the federal courts of New York are Not the only claims which I may assert and further attempted to politely suggest to you that despite a present Dismissal from the Southern District of New York District Court Judge, that not only is the case on Appeal to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, but that further Lawsuits Motions and filings would soon be forthcoming which were not necessarily limited to the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and not limited to the Federal Courts in New York. 

Further, that as a result of ongoing state, federal and international investigations that criminal charges may soon be filed by any of the numerous investigatory agencies worldwide against certain defendants and certainly this could have catastrophic individual and corporate ramifications on Intel Corporation and certainly shareholders and regulators would have to be notified of these possible actions as well. 

I do note as an aside, Mr. Sewell, that your hostile reactions and refusal to have polite discussions may be a sign of personal failings and/or medical/psychological conditions or even perhaps reactions based upon intimate relevant knowledge of wrongdoings herein but no matter what the cause you may wish to Consult your company's Own Code of Conduct Rules for internal reporting where it is possible that a company employee such as yourself may or likely is Not acting in the best interests of the Intel Corporation. A Link to the Intel PDF Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Rules is @ for your convenience. 

Returning your focus, however, to the issues at hand, I remind you that the Appeal in my case is currently and presently pending at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals which raises a very remarkable issue based on your conduct: Since in any fair and ethical court and tribunal the outcome of a matter is never certain "in advance", are You suggesting Mr. Sewell that you have some advance insight or knowledge of the outcome that is forthcoming at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals sufficient to not render the matter "contingent"? 

If you do, of course, I will most certainly immediately Report this matter to any and All appropriate authorities including the US Attorney's Office, US DOJ Inspector Glenn A. Fine, Marshall Jarrett of the FBI OPR, the US Judicial Council, US House, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Intel Board and Shareholders and US Senate Judiciary Committees and other as proper. 

If, however, you do not have such "definite" and "certain" information in advance which would of course be "Illegal" and proof of corruption if you did, then you Must admit that the liability is "contingent" and based upon your specific personal knowledge of the Signed NDAs, Strategic Alliance Agreements, Licensing Agreements, etc. you must Book the liability and Disclose same and Assign an estimated value which such value has been estimated to be nearly a Trillion dollars over the life of the IP and further the lawsuit you are named defendant in, contained in the Amended Complaint you have been served and current filings in the United States Court of Appeal, has 12 Counts currently cited against all are claimed at One Trillion per Count. 

Obviously you must be aware of what type of catastrophic consequences this liability will have on Intel and if you are not taking appropriate actions I again suggest you may be either suffering from some form of personal disability or are acting directly against the Intel Code of Conduct and against the interests of Intel Shareholders and against the accounting Laws and rules. 

Keep in mind, however, that just this analysis under the Rules while my current case is "pending" with the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals does not contemplate future action at the US Supreme Court, returned action at the District Court, additional motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals, other Federal Courts and International venues, which I politely suggested to you during our phone conversation that Intel can definitely anticipate which is why I was suggesting as a responsible business person that we now begin possible settlement discussions, discussions which may alleviate certain of the liabilities although not perhaps your personal liabilities. 

More importantly, however, as you should be expressly aware, I have yet to file a formal claim based strictly on the violations of the Signed NDA’s, Strategic Alliance Agreements and Licensing Agreements themselves, although contained in broad strokes in the Amended Complaint, yet these claims may also be separate claims which not only do you have personal knowledge of the existence of the claims but were being advised during our conversation of my clear intent to pursue such filings in the near future. 

You have also been aware of the patent claims from Iviewit, along with many others at Intel for many years now and where shareholders will question the impact of the royalties owed that were left off the books perhaps.

Now it is possible, however unlikely, that my interpretations of these Accounting Rules possibly somehow do not comport with current interpretations of these matters by the IRS/SEC but certainly I can call them within 24 hours to apprise the IRS/SEC of the situation and seek guidance and advice relative to the proper interpretations and whatever else may be just and proper. 

Prior to doing so, however, I am once again offering you as a sound and proper business judgment matter an opportunity, a 24 hour opportunity measured from 9:00am on Friday, March 06, 2009 to 9:00am on Saturday, March 07, 2009 time to turn these matters over to the CEO and Chairman of the Board and have them call me within such time to address first if you should continue to handle these matters in light of the possible FASB issues and two if they would like to have the business discussion you failed to even desire to hear, in your repeated statements that in your opinion Intel had NO liability in these matters at this time. 

FASB would point to the points of liability it appears first where Intel was aware of the Intellectual Property and royalties that would be due under licensing agreements for the technology and from Intel and your initial contact from Iviewit and myself of the lawsuits and other actions that proceeded them. 

Any reply to this communication is demanded to be by the CEO and Chairman only and if they choose to have counsel present prior to our conversation, we would prefer they choose none conflicted counsel which would now exclude you. 

As you are again made aware the federal case has been called a MURDER case by Judge Shira Scheindlin and one of Patent Theft and Car Bombings, certainly we anticipate that with matters as serious of these, with liabilities over the top (some that Intel may or may not be involved in) each liability must be reported to the top senior executives and board members of Intel and anything short will prompt immediate actions on our part to inform those at risk and those in charge of investigating such failures of disclosure.

Further, I have attached for your convenience and completion of Due Diligence some selected article links, which have direct and/or related relevance to the matters herein. 

Finally, you asked if I was threatening you and if I thought this was a game. Yes, most certainly, I was communicating my continued assertion of rights and claims through continued litigation in multiple venues and no, I do not think people trying to Murder my wife, children and myself as a game but instead as a war.Regretfully Respectfully Yours, 

Eliot I. Bernstein
Founder & Inventor

Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Holdings, Inc. – FL
Iviewit Technologies, Inc. – DL, Inc. – DL, Inc. – FL, Inc. – DL
I.C., Inc. – FL LLC – DL
Iviewit LLC – DL
Iviewit Corporation – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – FL
Iviewit, Inc. – DL
Iviewit Corporation


Iviewit Technologies, Inc.


1. Today's Article March 5, 2009 on Request to US Attorney General Holder for Special Prosecutor in NY Judicial and Ethics Scandals involving NYS First Department DDC and more; 

2. Article Excerpt on Iviewit Patengate at Website Nov. 24, 2007: 

The OPR investigation was sparked by a request from the DOJ - OIG, Inspector General Glenn Fine's Office whom is also conducting an ongoing investigation. 

The patent pending applications and other IP have been suspended by the Commissioner of Patents pending the outcome of ongoing state, federal and international investigations. The probe reaches some of New York's most prominent politicians and judges, and has already proven to be a stunning embarrassment to the State's ethics watchdog committees.

As a backdrop to the technologies in question, Mr. Bernstein's inventions, the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems, are the backbone, enabling technologies for the transmission of video and images across almost all transmission networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints -- the "Holy Grail" inventions of the digital imaging and video worlds that enable low bandwidth video on the Internet and mobile phones."

Article Link: 

3. Article Excerpt from "Justice Department Widens Patengate Probe..." August 24, 2007: 

This is quite serious," says an investigator close to the federal probe. "The charges allege that valuable 'back-bone enabling digital imaging technology'-- MPEG type intellectual property-- was stolen by the inventor's own attorneys, the once-untouchable Manhattan based law firm Proskauer Rose. This is going to get very ugly," he says. . . . . . .

I know how," says a retired federal agent who asked not to be identified. "Phone calls were made—many phone calls. Plain and simple." And while this retired federal agent isn't surprised by the apparent "cover-up," he is alarmed by his own findings after a month-long independent review of all submitted Iviewit papers. "I can't find one discrepancy in the allegations, not one unsubstantiated charge," he says. . . . . . . . 

The powers that be can't contain this story anymore—it's out, U.S. Senators and Congressman are talking about it. This involves national Commerce issues: attorneys stealing U.S. Patents from their own client, and the illegal failings of a state's ethics agency by its own cover-up, and selective, self-dealing, politically-based inaction. Patentgate appears to have exposed the true, and troubling, underbelly of ethics investigations in New York State. And it’s not pretty.

**Earlier this year, FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C. assigned additional agents to the Public Integrity Corruption squad at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan, and where agents have been actively conducting interviews. **

Article Link: 

4. Article Excertp from "NY Ethics Scandal Tied to International Espionage Scheme"; April 1, 2008;

The evidence in the corporate eavesdropping cover-up “is frightening,” according to an informed source who has reviewed the volumes of documentation. The espionage scheme, he says, is directly tied to the growing state bar ethics scandal at the Appellate Division First Department, Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) in Manhattan.

Article Link: Enclosure(s)/Attachment(s)

Uniform Resource Locator(s)
All Url’s incorporated in entirety by reference herein

cmb "

Dated June 16, 2009"

Source of Post

Monday, January 7, 2013

Greenberg Traurig Law Firm is named in an iViewit RICO Complaint, SEC Complaint, SEC Complaint, USPTO Complaint and more .. Synaptics KNOWS they are infringing on the iViewit Technology. Synaptics and Greenberg Traurig FAIL to Disclose to SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. Greenberg Traurig is acting in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy with Las Vegas Attorney Ronald D. Green to Suppress the iViewIt Stolen Technology Story.

Greenberg Traurig is involved in the biggest Technology Crime in the WORLD, which is the theft of the iViewit Video TechnologyEliot Bernstein is one of the iViewit Inventors and Eliot Bernstein is the founder of the iViewIt Company.

Lawyer Ronald D. Green use to Work at Greenberg Traurig. Ronald D. Green is the Attorney leading the Fight to Steal iViewit Founder and Inventor Eliot Bernstein and Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox's Intellectual Property and suppress the  biggest Technology Crime in the WORLD, which is the theft of the iViewit Video Technology.

Greenberg Traurig represents Synaptics as Seen Below.
Smith and Wesson Holdings Corp. (Jeffrey D. Buchanan),
Synaptics Inc. and Greenberg Traurig

Law Firm: Greenberg Traurig
Document Date: 10/6/2011
Industry: Computer Hardware
Sector: Technology
Governing Law:California"

Source of Above Quote

Greenberg Traurig KNOWS Full Well that Synaptics Inc. is infringing on the iViewit Technology.

Synaptics knows they are infringing on the iViewit Technology, YET no one is Telling the Synaptics Shareholders, WHY?

Greenberg Traurig, Synaptics Research Links

                           Greenberg Traurig, iViewit Technology Research Links

David Wang of SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. is the Senior Vice President of Silicon Engineering at SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. and David Wang of Synaptics was in management at Silicon Graphics which was instrumental in the theft of the iViewit Technology. David Wang of Synaptics Inc. AND Mark Vena of Synaptics KNOW of Massive Shareholder Liabilities to SYNA.O and FAIL to Disclose.

Synaptics, David Wang, Mark Vena, and Greenberg Traurig Law Firm know of Massive Liabilities to Synaptics Shareholders and FAIL to DISCLOSE.

David Wang is the Senior Vice President of Silicon Engineering at SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. and David Wang of Synaptics was in management at Silicon Graphics which was instrumental in the theft of the iViewit Technology, in conspiracy with Proskauer Rose Law Firm and Enron.

Silicon Graphics went bankrupt, and Proskauer Rose Law Firm and Enron was involved in this bankruptcy and in the STEALING of the iViewit Technology through the  Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy.

David Wang of Synaptics and Mark Vena of Synaptics Know this, Greenberg Traurig Knows as they are NAMED in the iViewit RICO Complaint and Investigations, Yet none of them disclose this 13 Trillion Dollar Liability to the Shareholders of Synaptics, SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc, NASDAQ: SYNA.

David Wang, Synaptics Inc. seems to be failing to disclose massive shareholder liability to SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc..  David Wang, Synaptics Inc. knows of the iViewIt Technology Liability, as he was at Silicon Graphics prior to Synaptics Inc. So was Mark Vena.

Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy Research Links
( David Wang, Mark Vena )

Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy is what brought the attention of the iViewit Technology story to Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox, as at that time I was reporting on Bankruptcy Corruption regarding the Summit 1031 Bankruptcy out of Bend Oregon, and was leading in the search engines for search terms to do with Bankruptcy Corruption.  My research was drawn to the Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy in connection to Enron, Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Technology Company.

Research Links Regarding  Silicon Graphics Company and Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy and the iViewit Technology Company, Eliot Bernstein. 

Iviewit Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy Filing to Remove Judge Martin Glenn

Todd Outten, MovieFly, Co-Conspirator, Counter Defendant

I would Say, in my Opinion that SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. and Liberty Media are the Kingpins behind the Global infringement of the iViewit Technology. 

David Wang of  Synaptics is the Senior Vice President of Silicon Engineering at SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. Research Links.

"Prioto ArtX, David had held various technical and management positions at Silicon Graphics and LSI Logic"

 "Now, we received word that David Wang joined Synaptics in a role of Senior Vice President, reporting to the CEO. Just like at AMD, David's role is one of paramount importance, since he will be "responsible for silicon development of Synaptics products." Given his previous role as a development lead for all AMD/ATI products (APU, CPU, GPU, Console processors), there's no doubt that Synaptics is gaining an invaluable employee.

This should be of no surprise, as the current President and CEO of Synaptics is no other than Rick Bergman, senior engineering executive at S3, ATI Technologies and AMD. We reported about Rick abruptly leaving AMD and then resurfacing at Synaptics, which is what happened with Godfrey Cheng (senior marketing exec) as well."

"David Wang is the Corporate Vice President of AMD’s Products Group. David’s team is responsible for the silicon development of AMD's award winning GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), APU (Accelerated Processing Unit), and Server products.

David was part of the ArtX team acquired by ATI in 2000. At ArtX, he was the design manager for Nintendo’s GameCube gaming system. Prior to ArtX, David has held various technical and management positions at SGI (Silicon Graphics) and LSI Logic. "

David Wang of  Synaptics is the Senior Vice President of Silicon Engineering at SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. and David Wang of  Synaptics was Corporate Vice President at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)

iViewit AMD, Advanced Micro Devices Research Links

"Iviewit Motion to Compel US Second Circuit (Circus) Court to Follow Law. Allen Stanford, Bernard Madoff, Marc S. Dreier links to Iviewit via Proskauer Rose and Foley and Lardner implicated in Trillion Dollar Suit. Citizen Arrest of Judge Ralph Winter & Clerk Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe."

WestSummit Capital 

John Yu - WestSummit Capital - Silicon Graphics

WestSummit Capital Principal David Wang

If this is True "YuMe named to Top 100 Companies that matter most in Online Video 2012", then YuMe is the biggest infringer on iVieiwt Technology currently. And YuMe is connected to Silicon Graphics through John Yu.

Mark N. Vena - SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. SEC Form 4 Research Links
Kermit Nolan, Attorney

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox alleges that David Wang of  Synaptics Inc. is acting in criminal and civil conspiracy with Mark Vena of Synaptics to silence those who speak out about the biggest tech crime in the world, which is iViewit Technologies and the iViewit Technology Founder Eliot Bernstein.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox alleges that David Wang of  Synaptics Inc. is acting in criminal and civil conspiracy with Mark Vena of Synaptics to harass, intimidate, threaten, gang stalk, internet mob, remove blogs and online social network accounts, remove videos, steal domain names, steal intellectual property of Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox and Investigative Blogger, Industry Insider Monica Foster.

Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox alleges that David Wang of Synaptics and Mark Vena of Synaptics are committing massive shareholder fraud in NOT disclosing to SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. Shareholders, the massive shareholder liability over the infringement of the iViewit Technology ( Eliot Bernstein ) by SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc.

David Wang of Synaptics is the Senior Vice President of Silicon Engineering at SYNA.O, Synaptics Inc. and David Wang of Synaptics was in management at  Silicon Graphics which was instrumental in the theft of the iViewit Technology.

More on Mark Vena, Greenberg Traurig, David Wang and Synaptics

SYNA.O - Synaptics Inc (SYNA.O), David Wang, Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technologies, RICO Complaint, SEC Complaint, Shareholder Fraud, Silicon Graphics, Synaptics, AMD/ATI Processor, David Wang, Eliot Bernstein, iViewit Technologies, RICO Complaint, SEC Complaint, Shareholder Fraud, Silicon Graphics, Synaptics,  Rackable Systems

Liberty Media Holdings, John C. Malone and Greenberg Traurig Sued by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox over iViewIt Technology Infringement and Extreme Harassment, Free Speech Suppression, and Hate Crimes in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL. Free Speech Chilling Affect, First Amendment Violation, Technology Theft Cover Up, Corrupt Law Firms, Above the Law Attorneys, Gang Stalkers, Whistle Blower Retaliation and More.

Synaptics, Mark Vena and David Wang Soon to Be Named Defendants in Conspiracy with Liberty Media Holdings, Greenberg Traurig, and other in regard to silencing Free Speech, Defamation, Intimidation, Hate Crimes, Harassment, and more.

Liberty Media Holdings and John C. Malone Sued over iViewit Technology Infringement in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL. Liberty Media Holdings and John C. Malone Sued in connection to Gang Stalkings, Criminal and Civil Conspiracy in connection with a ring of Lawyers who stalk, harass, threaten and intimidate whistle blowers, investigative bloggers, and industry insiders who are exposing the FACT that Liberty Media Holdings and John C. Malone is using the iViewIt Technology and has for over a Decade, with no license in place, and no rights to the Inventors of the iViewit Video Technology.

More information Regarding iViewit Technology and Liberty Media Connected Companies Infringement on the iViewit Video Technology.

Liberty Media Holdings and John C. Malone is being Sued by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox  in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, over conspiring to silence her investigative reporting regarding iViewit Technology Infringement.

Liberty Media Holdings and John C. Malone is being Sued by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox  in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL, regarding a gang stalking including bloggers, reporters, attorneys and big media in intimidation of Industry Insider Monica Foster, and in connection to severe harassment, intimidation and duress placed on  Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox in order to STOP the flow of information, suppress free speech and shut down thousands of blog posts placed over 4 years in regard to the FACT that Liberty Media Companies use the  iViewit Video Technology, without a license from Inventor Eliot Bernstein and the iViewit Company.

Lots more Coming Soon Regarding Liberty Media Holdings companies and John C. Malone Companies infringing on the iViewit Technology and the attorneys who conspire to keep the biggest technology theft in the world a secret.  These attorneys, bloggers, Forbes Journalists, New York Times Journalists, Lawyers with Blogs, and more are conspiring to commit fraud on the courts as they post on their blogs, each others blogs then submit this information to the courts as legal commentary and use this to steal intellectual property, to copyright troll, to suppress free speech, to pressure insiders to suicide, to stalk industry whistle blowers homes and to threaten, ruin, and intimidate those who dare to speak out and expose them.

Source of Post

Liberty Media Holdings SUED by Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox