Foley and Lardner RICO Complaint
1983 Civil Rights Case
Foley & Lardner San Diego re Eminent Domain
Illegal Land Taken from Private Citizen ?
More Coming Soon... on Foley and Lardner's
Decades of Illegal, Immoral Terror on US Citizens.
"Plaintiff Joan Brown Kearney, following a state court eminent domain trial against a school district represented by Foley & Lardner LLP, brought this federal action against both the school district and Foley & Lardner alleging violations of federal RICO, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state common law claims, including spoliation of evidence, fraud and prima facie tort."
Link to More information
http://blog.hinshawlaw.com/theethicalquandary/?p=959
More on the Names, Players, Judges, Courts, Attorneys
and possible corruption, payoffs or conflicts of interest in
this One... Coming SOON...
posted by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Got a Tip ???
Are you a Foley and Lardner VICTIM...??
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
industry whistleblower
Monday, February 15, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Where there is Billions Lost by Investors and Trillion Dollar Patent Thefts, there is Proskauer Rose LLP and the US Second Circuit Court.
US Second Circuit Court Seems to Ignore Emergency Request
to Investigate Proskauer Rose LLP.
Information from March 2009 included in Eliot Bernstein's Complaint to the SEC On Proskauer Rose... Time Warner, Warner Bros., Intel Corp, SGI, Lockheed Martin and More...
Was anyone listening to Eliot I. Bernstein? Or was the Madoff Liquidation of Assets just simply another layer to an already corruption Multi-Billion Dollar investment scheme...
From Eliot Bernstein's Blog on his SEC Complaint listing Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner, Ernst Young, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin and explaining a whole lot more about the names and players of the Trillion Dollar Stolen Iviewit Patent, and the Involvement and Cover Ups for and by Proskauer Rose LLP - Meg Law Firm.
" " March 02, 2009 “EMERGENCY MOTION TO INVESTIGATE PROSKAUER ROSE DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEN STANFORD FINANCIAL, THE BERNARD MADOFF AND THE MARC DRIER FRAUD SCANDALS.
REMOVE PROSKAUER FROM SELF REPRESENTATION IN THESE MATTERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE FBI REMOVES THEM FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STANFORD FINANCIAL FRAUD”
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf
I filed Motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and US District Court, already exhibited herein, with similar claims of regulatory failures of the prior Presidential administration. Failures allegedly directly related to the Madoff case and I have reported this to Federal Authorities.
The Motions also discuss Conflicts centering on the Madoff saga where Proskauer publicly identified their firm as having the most clients in the Madoff Ponzi and now it is revealed in the press that many Madoff clients are the subject of ongoing SEC investigations.
The Motion at the US Second Circuit is to Compel that court to address the Conflicts of Interest and other matters according to law, laws being ignored while the Court and the Defendants perpetuate never ending Conflicts and Crimes. Note here that the handling of the Madoff Ponzi is by the same courts handling my RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and that the same courts were notified for months of the correlations between the Madoff Ponzi and my Lawsuit and have failed to notify the proper authorities, including the SEC and instead attempted to bury my lawsuit and motions.
The SEC should further note that in the courts handling my Lawsuit, many of the judges and clerks are also Defendants in the Lawsuit and despite the obvious conflicts, they continue to handle the matters, as if no rules or laws apply to them.
These illegal actions by members of the courts should also be cause for the SEC, FBI and others addressed herein to investigate the members of the courts involved for possible collusion and aiding and abetting these schemes through Fraud on the Courts.
Following this Formal Complaint, for the courts failures to address the conflicts and misprision of a felony, the three Second Circuit Judges involved in my appeal will be filed on for Criminal Obstruction and other crimes, as exhibited already in the Motion to Compel.
The SEC should note here that the US Second Circuit has recently attempted to evade the Motion to Compel, by attempting to dismiss the Appeal as baseless, while the related Whistleblower case remains ongoing.
Sneaky as it sounds, by dismissing the case, the court has evaded addressing the criminal charges levied against them and the request for oversight of their criminal actions, as set forth in the Motion to Compel. This brilliant but failed attempt to evade the Motion to Compel, without having to rule on their conflicts or answer the charges against them, despite factual and material conflicts of interests in the court, further evidences their continued criminal obstruction.
All those addressed herein, should therefore immediately begin investigation of the Second Circuit and US District Court for the Southern District of New York court officials involved. Especially concerning their concealment from authorities of these material facts relating to these Schemes, again which may be a Misprision of Felony and whereby had the courts acted within law they could have prevented injury to many victims in these Schemes years earlier, when I initially reported Proskauer’s misdeeds to them.
This information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Madoff Scheme in light of this new evidence. All asset sales and other distributions should instantly be halted until these material facts can be reviewed to determine if these funds are also relating to the Iviewit stolen patents. " "
Click here for Source of this Post and the Entire SEC Complaint
Wake Up Mary Schapiro - this is and has been a Financial EMERGENCY for a VERY long time..
Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
If you have any information on Proskauer Rose's further involvement in the Standford Affair, the Madoff Scheme or any dirty deeds or favors owed that would make it so that Proskauer Rose LLP can seem to hold no accountability for Billions of Dollars of Shareholder Loss... Please Email Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox at Crystal@CrytalCox.com
blog
crystal cox
to Investigate Proskauer Rose LLP.
Information from March 2009 included in Eliot Bernstein's Complaint to the SEC On Proskauer Rose... Time Warner, Warner Bros., Intel Corp, SGI, Lockheed Martin and More...
Was anyone listening to Eliot I. Bernstein? Or was the Madoff Liquidation of Assets just simply another layer to an already corruption Multi-Billion Dollar investment scheme...
From Eliot Bernstein's Blog on his SEC Complaint listing Warner Bros., AOL, Time Warner, Ernst Young, Intel, SGI, Lockheed Martin and explaining a whole lot more about the names and players of the Trillion Dollar Stolen Iviewit Patent, and the Involvement and Cover Ups for and by Proskauer Rose LLP - Meg Law Firm.
" " March 02, 2009 “EMERGENCY MOTION TO INVESTIGATE PROSKAUER ROSE DEFENDANTS INVOLVEMENT IN THE ALLEN STANFORD FINANCIAL, THE BERNARD MADOFF AND THE MARC DRIER FRAUD SCANDALS.
REMOVE PROSKAUER FROM SELF REPRESENTATION IN THESE MATTERS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE FBI REMOVES THEM FROM THE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE STANFORD FINANCIAL FRAUD”
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20090302%20FINAL%20Emergency%20Motion%20Re%20Proskauer%20Stanford%20Madoff%20Dreier%20Scandals4017.pdf
I filed Motions at the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals and US District Court, already exhibited herein, with similar claims of regulatory failures of the prior Presidential administration. Failures allegedly directly related to the Madoff case and I have reported this to Federal Authorities.
The Motions also discuss Conflicts centering on the Madoff saga where Proskauer publicly identified their firm as having the most clients in the Madoff Ponzi and now it is revealed in the press that many Madoff clients are the subject of ongoing SEC investigations.
The Motion at the US Second Circuit is to Compel that court to address the Conflicts of Interest and other matters according to law, laws being ignored while the Court and the Defendants perpetuate never ending Conflicts and Crimes. Note here that the handling of the Madoff Ponzi is by the same courts handling my RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit and that the same courts were notified for months of the correlations between the Madoff Ponzi and my Lawsuit and have failed to notify the proper authorities, including the SEC and instead attempted to bury my lawsuit and motions.
The SEC should further note that in the courts handling my Lawsuit, many of the judges and clerks are also Defendants in the Lawsuit and despite the obvious conflicts, they continue to handle the matters, as if no rules or laws apply to them.
These illegal actions by members of the courts should also be cause for the SEC, FBI and others addressed herein to investigate the members of the courts involved for possible collusion and aiding and abetting these schemes through Fraud on the Courts.
Following this Formal Complaint, for the courts failures to address the conflicts and misprision of a felony, the three Second Circuit Judges involved in my appeal will be filed on for Criminal Obstruction and other crimes, as exhibited already in the Motion to Compel.
The SEC should note here that the US Second Circuit has recently attempted to evade the Motion to Compel, by attempting to dismiss the Appeal as baseless, while the related Whistleblower case remains ongoing.
Sneaky as it sounds, by dismissing the case, the court has evaded addressing the criminal charges levied against them and the request for oversight of their criminal actions, as set forth in the Motion to Compel. This brilliant but failed attempt to evade the Motion to Compel, without having to rule on their conflicts or answer the charges against them, despite factual and material conflicts of interests in the court, further evidences their continued criminal obstruction.
All those addressed herein, should therefore immediately begin investigation of the Second Circuit and US District Court for the Southern District of New York court officials involved. Especially concerning their concealment from authorities of these material facts relating to these Schemes, again which may be a Misprision of Felony and whereby had the courts acted within law they could have prevented injury to many victims in these Schemes years earlier, when I initially reported Proskauer’s misdeeds to them.
This information should be cause for the SEC to reanalyze the entire Madoff Scheme in light of this new evidence. All asset sales and other distributions should instantly be halted until these material facts can be reviewed to determine if these funds are also relating to the Iviewit stolen patents. " "
Click here for Source of this Post and the Entire SEC Complaint
Wake Up Mary Schapiro - this is and has been a Financial EMERGENCY for a VERY long time..
Posted Here by Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
If you have any information on Proskauer Rose's further involvement in the Standford Affair, the Madoff Scheme or any dirty deeds or favors owed that would make it so that Proskauer Rose LLP can seem to hold no accountability for Billions of Dollars of Shareholder Loss... Please Email Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox at Crystal@CrytalCox.com
blog
crystal cox
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Eliot Bernstein - Iviewit Technologies Reporting Stephen Lamont to the New York Attorney General
on the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
To Steven Michael Cohen
Counselor and Chief of Staff
New York Attorney General
Dated: June 18th, 2009
Re: First Department Obstruction of Justice
Letter to Steven M. Cohen, NYAG
From Eliot I. Bernstein Founder and Inventor
I~view~it Technologies, INC
I~view~it Holdings,Inc
This Letter is About Obstruction of Justice, Conflicts of Interest and More.. This Letter to the NYAG also includes information on Eliot Bernstein, Founder and One of the Inventors of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. - Complaining to the NYAG that Stephen Lamont has been requested to cease making representations of behalf of Iviewit and its Share Holders... Read FULL Document Below - and Decide the Truth for Yourself.
Click Here for Document
Counselor and Chief of Staff
New York Attorney General
Dated: June 18th, 2009
Re: First Department Obstruction of Justice
Letter to Steven M. Cohen, NYAG
From Eliot I. Bernstein Founder and Inventor
I~view~it Technologies, INC
I~view~it Holdings,Inc
This Letter is About Obstruction of Justice, Conflicts of Interest and More.. This Letter to the NYAG also includes information on Eliot Bernstein, Founder and One of the Inventors of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. - Complaining to the NYAG that Stephen Lamont has been requested to cease making representations of behalf of Iviewit and its Share Holders... Read FULL Document Below - and Decide the Truth for Yourself.
Click Here for Document
posted here by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Industry Whistleblower
More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
Christine Anderson, Senator John L. Sampson, Thomas Cahill, US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit
US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit - Anderson v The State of NewYork, et al.
Letter from Eliot I. Bernstein, Founder and Inventor - I-view-it Technologies to Senator John L. Sampson Chairman and to ALL members of the New York Judiciary Committe.
Oct. 2009
Click Here for the Document
... US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599)
Anderson v The State of New York, et al.
Criminal Allegations Requiring
Senator John L. Sampson's Immediate Attention.
In Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's US Federal Court Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Reveals a "Cleaner", Naomi Goldstein, at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Department ETHICS Committee allegedly Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA's and more.
Inventor Eliot Bernstein's Family Minivan Bombed in US Patent Office Fraud files Twelve Trillion Dollar RICO Suit legally "related" by Judge Scheindlin to the Whistleblower case (08-4873-cv US Court of Appeals Second Circuit) and US District Court (07cv11196).
Where was the Press through all this, not a single report in over five years regarding a Car Bombing so powerful it blew up three cars next to it in Boynton Beach Florida and not a single press story?
Where was the Press for the Whistleblower revelations of Whitewashing of Complaints by the New York Supreme Court for US Attorneys and District Attorneys, a Cleaner at the Ethics Department that regulates Wall Street Lawyers? ....
more at www.Iviewit.TV and at
www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal L. Cox
Letter from Eliot I. Bernstein, Founder and Inventor - I-view-it Technologies to Senator John L. Sampson Chairman and to ALL members of the New York Judiciary Committe.
Oct. 2009
Click Here for the Document
... US Federal Whistleblower Lawsuit (07cv09599)
Anderson v The State of New York, et al.
Criminal Allegations Requiring
Senator John L. Sampson's Immediate Attention.
In Judge Shira A. Scheindlin's US Federal Court Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson Reveals a "Cleaner", Naomi Goldstein, at the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
First Department ETHICS Committee allegedly Whitewashing Complaints for US Attorneys, DA's and more.
Inventor Eliot Bernstein's Family Minivan Bombed in US Patent Office Fraud files Twelve Trillion Dollar RICO Suit legally "related" by Judge Scheindlin to the Whistleblower case (08-4873-cv US Court of Appeals Second Circuit) and US District Court (07cv11196).
Where was the Press through all this, not a single report in over five years regarding a Car Bombing so powerful it blew up three cars next to it in Boynton Beach Florida and not a single press story?
Where was the Press for the Whistleblower revelations of Whitewashing of Complaints by the New York Supreme Court for US Attorneys and District Attorneys, a Cleaner at the Ethics Department that regulates Wall Street Lawyers? ....
more at www.Iviewit.TV and at
www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal L. Cox
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Iviewit Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy Filing to Remove Judge Martin Glenn
""« IVIEWIT TRILLION $$ FED SUIT DEFENDANT PROSKAUER ROSE SUED IN GLOBAL CLASS ACTION RE ALLEN STANFORD PONZI - SHIRA SCHEINDLIN WHISTLEBLOWER CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON TO TRIAL FOR PUBLIC OFFICE CORRUPTION CHARGES
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. »
Iviewit Silicon Graphics Bankruptcy Filing
to Remove Judge Martin Glenn
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
In re
GRAPHICS PROPERTIES
HOLDINGS, INC., et al.,
Debtors.
Chapter 11
Case No. 09-11701 (MG)
(Jointly Administered)
—- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
ELIOT BERNSTEIN CLAIMANT-CREDITORS MOTION TO COMPEL THE DISQUALIFICATION OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGE GLENN AND VACATE ORDERS UNDER FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 60, BANKRUPTCY RULE 9024 AND FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS AND OTHER RELIEF IN RELATION TO ORDER SUSTAINING THE OBJECTION OF THE DEBTORS TO CLAIM OF ELIOT I. BERNSTEIN
TO THE HONORABLE MARTIN GLENN
SDNY BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:
I Eliot Bernstein, Creditor and Claimant previously filed an Emergency motion seeking injunctive and other relief in April of 2009, and filed Proof of Claim No. 225 herein, and recently moved for various relief including but not limited to an extension of time to respond to objections to my proof of claim with such objections filed by Special Counsel Ropes & Gray, motion for an adjournment of a hearing on Sept. 15, 2009 for the appointment of counsel to Eliot Bernstein, motion for the determination of conflicts of interest, and other relief now move to compel the immediate Disqualification of SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, Vacating all Orders of SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn in these jointly administered proceedings specifically including an Order dated September 15, 2009, and for an immediate stay of proceedings pending oversight and assignment of these proceedings to an independent and neutral Judge in accordance with due process and Rules and Codes of Conduct applicable herein.
MOTION TO COMPEL DISQUALIFICATION OF SDNY BANKRUTCY JUDGE MARTIN GLENN 28 USC 455 AND OTHER
SGI, hereinafter the Debtors, herein, filed for Ch. 11 Bankruptcy Protection on April 1, 2009 several months after emerging from a prior Ch. 11 case.
More importantly, however, is that SGI’s filing in Ch. 11 on April 1, 2009 came within 6 days of the filing of a formal SEC complaint by myself against the Intel Corporation announcing a Trillion Dollar fraud to the SEC also involving Debtors SGI as well thru a Company which was mutually owned by Intel and SGI along with Lockheed Martin called Real3d Inc of Orlando, Florida.
That company Real3d Inc. is at the heart and central of a host of investigations and complaints as well as having been under signed NDA with myself and the Iviewit technologies dating back to 1998 or so.
The alleged “sales” transactions between Intel, the Debtors SGI, and Lockheed Martin involving Real3d Inc. were expressly made a part of the Formal SEC Complaint filed on March 25, 2009, 6 days before the SGI bankruptcy on April 1, 2009.
As referenced in my Emergency Motion filed April 9, 2009, In House General Counsel for Debtors SGI Evelyn Ramirez was expressly placed on notice of the formal SEC Intel Real3d Inc and related complaint on March 25, 2009 just days before the Ch. 11 filing herein.
Despite this express notice on March 25, 2009, the April 1, 2009 Ch. 11 filing wholly failed to List the claims of Eliot Bernstein and related claims herein amounting to a Fraud in filing by SGI upon which THIS Court, SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, was duly noticed.
SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn was further upon direct Notice as of April 9, 2009 with my Emergency filing of the existence of ongoing and open investigations involving multiple federal offices including at the USPTO where Harry Moatz, Director of the OED of the USPTO and a federal official had specifically directed me to file Fraud against the USPTO.
Further, Moatz assembled a team of patent office officials to work with myself to file to remove all former counsel from the applications and respond to outstanding issues to move the IP into a suspended status.
After review of the allegations, the Commissioner of Patents then Suspended various Patent applications herein pending investigation relating to the Trillion Dollar Technologies at issue. Inventor change forms filed to change the fraudulent inventors and certain IP that has falsified inventors were not changeable without an Act of Congress to change existing USPTO privacy policies, Senator Dianne Feinstein has been reviewing these matters, as well as, members of the House Judiciary Committee.
SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn was further placed on express notice of actions by the Office of Inspector General Glenn A. Fine of the US DOJ, pending matters with the OPR of the FBI and the federal whistleblower case of Christine Anderson now heading to trial in the Southern District of NY which my Amended Complaint at the US District Court was marked legally “related” to by District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin.
SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn was further on direct notice that the Debtors SGI had simultaneously moved at the time of filing Ch. 11 on April 1, 2009 to simultaneously Employ as Special Counsel the law firm of Davis Polk Wardell (DPW) and Ropes and Gray, LLP by an application filed on such date by Ropes and Gray, LLP including a Declaration by William Kelly of DPW and that DPW was simultaneously representing the Lockheed Martin Corporation and SGI,
the Debtors herein, both of whom were Equity owners in Real3d Inc which was under signed NDA with my technologies and at the heart of my complaints and investigations herein.
Most shockingly, the Declaration of DPW attorney William Kelly places Mr. Kelly as an Inside Officer at SGI during ALL of the Relevant initial years of the Technologies theft with SGI and Real3d Inc. and later as Outside counsel for SGI while at DPW who simultaneously represents Lockheed Martin, the other Company with Intel at the heart of the Technology thefts with Real3dInc and violations of signed NDAs.
Thus, Clear Facial Conflicts appeared on the Records and Dockets of these proceedings certainly as of the date of my Emergency Motion filing on April 9, 2009 and thus SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn should be charged with knowledge of such conflicts as of at least April 9, 2009.
Additional specified conflicts made in writing prior to the Sept. 15, 2009 hearing which have been knowingly, deliberately and intentionally disregarded as part of the wall of conflicts machinery of RICO activity in legal proceedings include DPW further simultaneously representing Lockheed, SGI owners in Real3d Inc, while also simultaneously representing the Financial Accountants KPMG employed by SGI in this Ch. 11 bankruptcy while further representing other major companies under NDA with my technologies such as CIBC and Morgan Stanley creating conflict within conflict herein.
It is noted for Historical reference at this time that the Formal SEC complaint filed in March of 2009 expressly referenced failures to follow FASB No. 5 and similar Accounting Rules in this Trillion dollar fraud. As of the filing of my Emergency Motion on April 9, 2009, the Nation ( United States ) has heard almost daily reports of Financial Fraud and related investigations after the collapse of Wall Street, the $65 Billion plus Madoff fraud, and $8Billion Stanford fraud and more while Davis Polk Wardell simultaneously represents multiple players in the Wall Street debacle and most interestingly Recruited and Hired back to DPW former head of Enforcement at the SEC Linda Chatman Thomsen who left the SEC under fire for the failures that lead to the $65Billion Madoff fraud. Such facts involving the Madoff and SEC and Linda Chatman Thomsen matter were of such public knowledge that SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn should be presumed to have taken judicial notice herein. Published sources claim that Linda Thomsen was recruited back to DPW in April 2009 shortly after my filings herein.
Many threads tie together several of these financial schemes with the Iviewit technologies and companies, including Madoff, Dreier and Stanford, as pled in my federal RICO case, fully incorporated herein by reference, US 2nd Circ. Docket No. ( 08-4873-cv ) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al. and USDC SDNY Docket No. ( 07cv11196 ) Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.
FUNDAMENTAL NOTIONS OF DUE PROCESS REQUIRE
INDEPENDENT AND NEUTRAL JUDGE
As noted by the US 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in an appeal of a case coming out of Operation Greylord, a massive FBI investigation into Judicial corruption in Cook County of Illinois, the United States Supreme Court “has observed that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136, 75 S.Ct. 623, 99 L.Ed. 942 (1955); see also McBride, 428 F.3d at 667 (”Fairness of course requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases …”).” See, Guest v McCann, http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/474/474.F3d.926.04-3736.html .
28 USC 455 provides in part as follows: “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
Disqualification is thus mandatory and shall be compelled where “impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.
SDNY Bankruptcy Judge Glenn is required under the federal Rules of Judicial Conduct as follows:
“CANON 2: A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES
A. Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all
times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ""
Source of Post and More information
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=76
Question: How Do you Deal with a Trillion Dollar Patent Theft and Billions upon Billions of Liability to Shareholders and States?
Answer: Ignore it and Hope it Just Goes Away.
More on the Iviewit Trillion Dollar Patent Theft at
www.Iviewit.TV and www.DeniedPatent.com
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Was Mary Shapiro - SEC Chairman a KNOWN Risk to Investors and Shareholders - What in Mary Shapiro's past SHOULD have been a Red Flag?
Securities and Exchange Commission - News Archives
"" [The Financial Meltdown]
President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Mary Schapiro as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission may go down as his worst appointment.
Schapiro, in her capacity as President of NASD Regulation and later CEO of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), was directly responsible for ensuring that Bernie Madoff's firm, BLM Securities, obeyed federal securities laws.
Schapiro in her capacity as Commissioner and acting-Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and later as President of NASD Regulation, has covered up more violations of federal securities law than Madoff has violated.
And yes, Bernie Madoff pulled off his scam when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation and Chairperson of FINRA, which regulates NASD!
Schapiro never investigated Madoff, probably because Madoff was a powerful individual, a former Chairman of NASD.
I’m privy to this information because I was a trader on Wall Street many years ago. Beginning in 1991 I had written to Steven Lister, Senior Vice President of Compliance at the American Stock Exchange (AMEX).
I requested that, as a former member of the American Stock Exchange, I be granted access to my records.
The American Stock Exchange never replied.
Whenever I saw Lister, I asked him when he would grant me access to my records, Lister would simply state: "No."
Little background. Members of the board of AMEX had told other members that I had been evicted from AMEX for refusing to pass through a metal detector; in reality I had exposed the fact that another member of the Board had been apprehended with an unregistered pistol after he went through metal detectors at AMEX. I wanted to see whether the false information about me was in my AMEX files.
On July 26, 1993, I wrote to Mary Schapiro and requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission order the American Stock Exchange to permit me access to my files after Lister again refused to grant me access to my records. Of course this is a violation of federal securities laws, but that did not matter to Schapiro.
And SEC attorney, GayLa D. Sessoms, in a letter dated August 23, 1993 claimed "the Commission does not have the authority to compel the AMEX to produce records to you."
Schapiro knew that AMEX was a hotbed of illegal activity by the Italian Mafia-but Schapiro always looked to greener pastures.
I did not expect this lack of support from Schapiro. After all, I executed orders for Frost & Sullivan, a trading firm, on the floor of the AMEX.
When the inside trading scandal in Motel 6 was exposed –a foreign company was planning to bid on Motel 6, which was a nationwide chain of budget motels, but the information leaked and Frost & Sullivan traded illegally on it— I was investigated by the SEC.
I was the only individual who was connected to the three firms involved in this insider trading scandal that did not trade on Motel 6 insider information and thereby profit illegally. I was also the only individual who possessed knowledge of the extent of the insider trading in Motel 6 who was not subpoenaed by the SEC.
Why? Because according to Joseph Greenwald, a trader with another firm, who pleaded guilty to insider trading in Motel 6, James Breeden, at the time Chairman of the SEC, and Mary Schapiro, who was then an SEC Commissioner, had ordered the SEC to limit the scope of the investigation. The intent was to protect senior members of the AMEX and Bear Stearns who had knowledge of the Motel 6 insider information.
On September 13, 1993 I met with Assistant United States Attorney Frances Fragos (who later, as Frances Fragos-Townsend was to become George W. Bush’s Homeland Security adviser) at 1 Saint Andrew Plaza, in Manhattan, to discuss the Italian Mafia's penetration of the AMEX; the insider trading scandal in Motel 6; payoffs to AMEX Compliance Attorneys by the Italian Mafia; payoffs by the Italian Mafia to members of the Board of the American Stock Exchange; the theft of $500,000 by a vice president of the AMEX; the stock fraud at a company named PNF; involvement of members of the Board of the AMEX in the stock fraud at PNF; and, a host of other crimes.
I had first approached the FBI to expose these crimes and the agency then arranged for me to meet with Frances Fragos.
(When I showed Fragos the letter from Sessoms, she told me that Sessoms had lied and that in fact the SEC had the authority to order the AMEX to grant me access to my records.
I was convinced that the SEC and AMEX knew that once I obtained my records, I could have forced investigations that would have exposed other major crimes; yet I needed my records as a launching point).
Of course the SEC had powers over the AMEX.
For example, in 1977 the AMEX gave mild disciplinary sanctions against about 20 members for posting fictitious options trades.
The SEC overruled the AMEX disciplinary actions and suspended the 20 or so members of the AMEX involved in this fraud, including future members of the Board of the AMEX, such as William Silver, Louis Miceli, and Robert VanCaneghan..
In 1995 when Schapiro was a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a huge illegal trading scandal erupted at the AMEX.
Pat Schettino, a rogue trader and managing director of Spear Leeds and Kellogg, falsified trades; marked options positions; produced fictitious trading records; stole money from AMEX members; violated the net capital rule (the type of offense for which Ivan Boesky later went to prison); and, even entered trades at fictitious prices.
When I wrote numerous letters to the SEC and members of the Board of the AMEX about Schettino's illegal trading, he hired Eric Levine, an attorney at Proskauer Rose and sued me for defamation. The SEC did nothing; even after I had written to the SEC, including Schapiro, about Schettino's massive illegal trading.
By taking no action, the SEC countenanced Schettino's actions against me. The AMEX delayed investigating Schettino for years. Two attorneys for the AMEX, Steven Lister and Phil Axelrod, who were supposed to be investigating Schettino even taunted me about Schettino's defamation lawsuit and told me that they hoped that I would lose.
In 1998 NASD purchased the American Stock Exchange. At the time Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, which was technically overseeing AMEX regulation.
Then in 1999 when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, major violations of federal securities laws at the AMEX were exposed in a seminal article, "Scandal On Wall Street," on the front page of Business Week and it was noted that Schettino had not been disciplined four years after he had violated federal securities laws. Schettino subsequently dropped his lawsuit against me.
Schapiro did nothing, but covered up these crimes. And what has all this have to do with Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi King? Madoff, like Schettino, had also produced fictitious trading records; falsified trades; and. stolen money.
Where was Schapiro, the nominal overseer of Madoff?
Now she is to become Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission?
(Schapiro did not return a phone message seeking comment; her aide said she was meeting with President Elect Obama in Chicago). ""
Source of Post
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=5221
Question: Mary Shapiro KNOWS of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. and is very aware according to what I have read.. about the implications to Shareholders that will be Billions upon Billions per Company in my Opinion. So when the SEC and Mary Shapiro Says she did not have prior Knowledge on the iViewit Scandal and all the Major Law Firms and Tech Companies involved.. ...
You Savvy Internet Investigators
will KNOW that she most Certainly DID...
How Come our Great Country is paying no attention to what seems in the above article to be decades of indescretions leading to Billions upon Billions and the Shareholders, Investors Seem to be the Ones to Take the Heat.. and Not Only is Mary Shapiro NEVER held Accountable, She is Constantly put back into some authoritative position that allows for the Same Over Looking of Tips - Not Looking into Facts and Creating or Shall I say ALLOWING huges Liabilities to Innocent Investors and Shareholders... ???
posted By
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
.... Got a Tip .. Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Investigative Blogger
"" [The Financial Meltdown]
President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Mary Schapiro as Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission may go down as his worst appointment.
Schapiro, in her capacity as President of NASD Regulation and later CEO of Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), was directly responsible for ensuring that Bernie Madoff's firm, BLM Securities, obeyed federal securities laws.
Schapiro in her capacity as Commissioner and acting-Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission and later as President of NASD Regulation, has covered up more violations of federal securities law than Madoff has violated.
And yes, Bernie Madoff pulled off his scam when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation and Chairperson of FINRA, which regulates NASD!
Schapiro never investigated Madoff, probably because Madoff was a powerful individual, a former Chairman of NASD.
I’m privy to this information because I was a trader on Wall Street many years ago. Beginning in 1991 I had written to Steven Lister, Senior Vice President of Compliance at the American Stock Exchange (AMEX).
I requested that, as a former member of the American Stock Exchange, I be granted access to my records.
The American Stock Exchange never replied.
Whenever I saw Lister, I asked him when he would grant me access to my records, Lister would simply state: "No."
Little background. Members of the board of AMEX had told other members that I had been evicted from AMEX for refusing to pass through a metal detector; in reality I had exposed the fact that another member of the Board had been apprehended with an unregistered pistol after he went through metal detectors at AMEX. I wanted to see whether the false information about me was in my AMEX files.
On July 26, 1993, I wrote to Mary Schapiro and requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission order the American Stock Exchange to permit me access to my files after Lister again refused to grant me access to my records. Of course this is a violation of federal securities laws, but that did not matter to Schapiro.
And SEC attorney, GayLa D. Sessoms, in a letter dated August 23, 1993 claimed "the Commission does not have the authority to compel the AMEX to produce records to you."
Schapiro knew that AMEX was a hotbed of illegal activity by the Italian Mafia-but Schapiro always looked to greener pastures.
I did not expect this lack of support from Schapiro. After all, I executed orders for Frost & Sullivan, a trading firm, on the floor of the AMEX.
When the inside trading scandal in Motel 6 was exposed –a foreign company was planning to bid on Motel 6, which was a nationwide chain of budget motels, but the information leaked and Frost & Sullivan traded illegally on it— I was investigated by the SEC.
I was the only individual who was connected to the three firms involved in this insider trading scandal that did not trade on Motel 6 insider information and thereby profit illegally. I was also the only individual who possessed knowledge of the extent of the insider trading in Motel 6 who was not subpoenaed by the SEC.
Why? Because according to Joseph Greenwald, a trader with another firm, who pleaded guilty to insider trading in Motel 6, James Breeden, at the time Chairman of the SEC, and Mary Schapiro, who was then an SEC Commissioner, had ordered the SEC to limit the scope of the investigation. The intent was to protect senior members of the AMEX and Bear Stearns who had knowledge of the Motel 6 insider information.
On September 13, 1993 I met with Assistant United States Attorney Frances Fragos (who later, as Frances Fragos-Townsend was to become George W. Bush’s Homeland Security adviser) at 1 Saint Andrew Plaza, in Manhattan, to discuss the Italian Mafia's penetration of the AMEX; the insider trading scandal in Motel 6; payoffs to AMEX Compliance Attorneys by the Italian Mafia; payoffs by the Italian Mafia to members of the Board of the American Stock Exchange; the theft of $500,000 by a vice president of the AMEX; the stock fraud at a company named PNF; involvement of members of the Board of the AMEX in the stock fraud at PNF; and, a host of other crimes.
I had first approached the FBI to expose these crimes and the agency then arranged for me to meet with Frances Fragos.
(When I showed Fragos the letter from Sessoms, she told me that Sessoms had lied and that in fact the SEC had the authority to order the AMEX to grant me access to my records.
I was convinced that the SEC and AMEX knew that once I obtained my records, I could have forced investigations that would have exposed other major crimes; yet I needed my records as a launching point).
Of course the SEC had powers over the AMEX.
For example, in 1977 the AMEX gave mild disciplinary sanctions against about 20 members for posting fictitious options trades.
The SEC overruled the AMEX disciplinary actions and suspended the 20 or so members of the AMEX involved in this fraud, including future members of the Board of the AMEX, such as William Silver, Louis Miceli, and Robert VanCaneghan..
In 1995 when Schapiro was a Commissioner of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a huge illegal trading scandal erupted at the AMEX.
Pat Schettino, a rogue trader and managing director of Spear Leeds and Kellogg, falsified trades; marked options positions; produced fictitious trading records; stole money from AMEX members; violated the net capital rule (the type of offense for which Ivan Boesky later went to prison); and, even entered trades at fictitious prices.
When I wrote numerous letters to the SEC and members of the Board of the AMEX about Schettino's illegal trading, he hired Eric Levine, an attorney at Proskauer Rose and sued me for defamation. The SEC did nothing; even after I had written to the SEC, including Schapiro, about Schettino's massive illegal trading.
By taking no action, the SEC countenanced Schettino's actions against me. The AMEX delayed investigating Schettino for years. Two attorneys for the AMEX, Steven Lister and Phil Axelrod, who were supposed to be investigating Schettino even taunted me about Schettino's defamation lawsuit and told me that they hoped that I would lose.
In 1998 NASD purchased the American Stock Exchange. At the time Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, which was technically overseeing AMEX regulation.
Then in 1999 when Schapiro was President of NASD Regulation, major violations of federal securities laws at the AMEX were exposed in a seminal article, "Scandal On Wall Street," on the front page of Business Week and it was noted that Schettino had not been disciplined four years after he had violated federal securities laws. Schettino subsequently dropped his lawsuit against me.
Schapiro did nothing, but covered up these crimes. And what has all this have to do with Bernard Madoff, the Ponzi King? Madoff, like Schettino, had also produced fictitious trading records; falsified trades; and. stolen money.
Where was Schapiro, the nominal overseer of Madoff?
Now she is to become Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission?
(Schapiro did not return a phone message seeking comment; her aide said she was meeting with President Elect Obama in Chicago). ""
Source of Post
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=5221
Question: Mary Shapiro KNOWS of the Iviewit Technologies Inc. and is very aware according to what I have read.. about the implications to Shareholders that will be Billions upon Billions per Company in my Opinion. So when the SEC and Mary Shapiro Says she did not have prior Knowledge on the iViewit Scandal and all the Major Law Firms and Tech Companies involved.. ...
You Savvy Internet Investigators
will KNOW that she most Certainly DID...
How Come our Great Country is paying no attention to what seems in the above article to be decades of indescretions leading to Billions upon Billions and the Shareholders, Investors Seem to be the Ones to Take the Heat.. and Not Only is Mary Shapiro NEVER held Accountable, She is Constantly put back into some authoritative position that allows for the Same Over Looking of Tips - Not Looking into Facts and Creating or Shall I say ALLOWING huges Liabilities to Innocent Investors and Shareholders... ???
posted By
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
.... Got a Tip .. Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Investigative Blogger
The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman - Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson in New York September 2009
"" « September 24, 2009 Public Hearing: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner
Prepared Statement of Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit to New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Regarding Trillion Dollar Iviewit Federal Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Larnder, IBM, Intel, SGI, Lockheed and More »
September 24, 2009 Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson NY: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Intel, IBM, SGI & Lockheed Martin.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Senator John Sampson Chairman
SUBJECT: The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PURPOSE: This hearing will review the mission, procedures and level of public satisfaction with the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts as well as the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Monday June 8, 2009
NYC
250 Broadway
NY NY
10 A.M.
19th Floor
ORAL TESTIMONY BY INVITATION ONLY
Witness List for Judiciary Hearing 9/24/09
The Judicial & Attorney Disciplinary Process in the State of New York
1. Richard Kuse of New City, NY
2. Victor Kovner of the Fund for Modem Courts
3. Douglas Higbee of Mamaroneck, NY
4. Judith Herskowitz of Miami Beach, FL
5. Peter Gonzalez of Troy, NY
6. Andrea Wilkinson of Rensselaer, NY
7. Maria Gkanios of Mahopac, NY
8. Dominic Lieto of Mahopac, NY
9. Regina Felton Esq of Brooklyn, NY
10. Kathryn Malarkey of Purchase, NY
11. Nora Renzuli, Esq. of Staten Island, NY
12. Stephanie Klein of Long Beach, NY
13. Ike Aruti of Rosedale, NY
14. Terrence Finnan of Keene, NY
15. Gizella Weisshaus, NY
16. Eliot I. Bernstein of Boca Raton, FL
17. Suzanne McCormick & Patrick Handley of NY
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the entity that is legally responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of attorneys in New York State. The Appellate Division Departments have created grievance committees that are charged with the investigation of complaints against attorneys.
Within the First Judicial Department the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division investigates complaints against attorneys.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by the State Constitution and is charged with investigating complaints against Judges and Justices of the Unified Court System.
According to the 2009 Report of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, there were 1,923 complaints filed in 2008. Yet of these complaints only 262 were investigated and of those, 173 were dismissed.
This hearing will examine the processes and procedures that are followed by the various agencies charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules and regulations that must be followed by the Judiciary and the Bar in the State of New York. It will also evaluate public satisfaction with the disciplinary process. ""
Full Article, Source of Post and VIDEO Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159
posted HERE by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Prepared Statement of Eliot I. Bernstein of Iviewit to New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Regarding Trillion Dollar Iviewit Federal Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Larnder, IBM, Intel, SGI, Lockheed and More »
September 24, 2009 Public Hearing Senator John L. Sampson NY: Standing Committee On The Judiciary New York Senate Judiciary Committee John L. Sampson Chairman – Testimony of Eliot Bernstein, Inventor, Iviewit Technologies re Trillion Dollar Lawsuit Naming Proskauer Rose, Foley & Lardner, Intel, IBM, SGI & Lockheed Martin.
SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Senator John Sampson Chairman
SUBJECT: The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
PURPOSE: This hearing will review the mission, procedures and level of public satisfaction with the Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee, the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts as well as the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct
Monday June 8, 2009
NYC
250 Broadway
NY NY
10 A.M.
19th Floor
ORAL TESTIMONY BY INVITATION ONLY
Witness List for Judiciary Hearing 9/24/09
The Judicial & Attorney Disciplinary Process in the State of New York
1. Richard Kuse of New City, NY
2. Victor Kovner of the Fund for Modem Courts
3. Douglas Higbee of Mamaroneck, NY
4. Judith Herskowitz of Miami Beach, FL
5. Peter Gonzalez of Troy, NY
6. Andrea Wilkinson of Rensselaer, NY
7. Maria Gkanios of Mahopac, NY
8. Dominic Lieto of Mahopac, NY
9. Regina Felton Esq of Brooklyn, NY
10. Kathryn Malarkey of Purchase, NY
11. Nora Renzuli, Esq. of Staten Island, NY
12. Stephanie Klein of Long Beach, NY
13. Ike Aruti of Rosedale, NY
14. Terrence Finnan of Keene, NY
15. Gizella Weisshaus, NY
16. Eliot I. Bernstein of Boca Raton, FL
17. Suzanne McCormick & Patrick Handley of NY
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court is the entity that is legally responsible for enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct governing the conduct of attorneys in New York State. The Appellate Division Departments have created grievance committees that are charged with the investigation of complaints against attorneys.
Within the First Judicial Department the Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division investigates complaints against attorneys.
The New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct was created by the State Constitution and is charged with investigating complaints against Judges and Justices of the Unified Court System.
According to the 2009 Report of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, there were 1,923 complaints filed in 2008. Yet of these complaints only 262 were investigated and of those, 173 were dismissed.
This hearing will examine the processes and procedures that are followed by the various agencies charged with the responsibility of enforcing the rules and regulations that must be followed by the Judiciary and the Bar in the State of New York. It will also evaluate public satisfaction with the disciplinary process. ""
Full Article, Source of Post and VIDEO Click Below
http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=159
posted HERE by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Sunday, February 7, 2010
US Taxpayers PAY for Corrupt DOJ Employees to Committ Fraud on the Courts
6 USDOJ employees caught lying to the court.
Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work - No Once seems to
be able to do anything about the Bankruptcy Court Corruption
and the DOJ Employee and Trustee Corruption, WHY?
Included in this post are a few of court documents from the Donald Stone Stolen Patent Case and his Florida RICO Compaint where 6 USDOJ employees are caught lying to the court, and trying to white wash Donald Ston'es criminal allegations as " a business dispute" .
These USDOJ criminals did not know that Donald Stone had their internal documents where they were discussing the multitude of criminal activities of Donald Stone's former business associates.
It is said that they were certain that they had been successful in concealing these documents and meeting from Donald Stone with their various schemes to thwart his subpoenas.
They tried this 'business dispute" trick with the court in their motion.
Donald Stone went back to the court with their own documents of this meeting 9/26/94 with a multitude of federal felony offenses.
And they were forced to admit to the criminal activities of Donald Stone's former business associates.
And it wouldn't be until 2005 that it would be discovered that the Sappersteins were stealing and laundering $3.5 million from the Baltimore School Board during the time that Donald Stone was suing them for racketeering and the USDOJ was protecting their criminal activities.
Is there NO Accountability at All in the United states Court System?
6 federal prosecutors caught lying in federal court proceedings. When does the injustice on We the People STOP. When is the TRUTH the only Real Defense that is needed in the Courts?
It is said that, Not only was Thomas E. Scott's name floated for possible FBI Director by Bush, Scott was a former federal judge in Miami before he became US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Readers Remember in your Research of Stolen Patents: One Connecting Element to these Stolen Patents is the Bankruptcy Courts. So the Department of Justice Trustee somewhere along the line has to be involved. This stuff is way more then Coincidence.
Florida Rico Click Here
RICO Document
Click Here to See Documents Used to
Catch the DOJ folks Lying
Curran Howard Falsified Affidavit
More on the Donald Stone Stolen Patent Case at
www.MarylandCorruption.com
crystal
Posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal Cox
Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work - No Once seems to
be able to do anything about the Bankruptcy Court Corruption
and the DOJ Employee and Trustee Corruption, WHY?
Included in this post are a few of court documents from the Donald Stone Stolen Patent Case and his Florida RICO Compaint where 6 USDOJ employees are caught lying to the court, and trying to white wash Donald Ston'es criminal allegations as " a business dispute" .
These USDOJ criminals did not know that Donald Stone had their internal documents where they were discussing the multitude of criminal activities of Donald Stone's former business associates.
It is said that they were certain that they had been successful in concealing these documents and meeting from Donald Stone with their various schemes to thwart his subpoenas.
They tried this 'business dispute" trick with the court in their motion.
Donald Stone went back to the court with their own documents of this meeting 9/26/94 with a multitude of federal felony offenses.
And they were forced to admit to the criminal activities of Donald Stone's former business associates.
And it wouldn't be until 2005 that it would be discovered that the Sappersteins were stealing and laundering $3.5 million from the Baltimore School Board during the time that Donald Stone was suing them for racketeering and the USDOJ was protecting their criminal activities.
Is there NO Accountability at All in the United states Court System?
6 federal prosecutors caught lying in federal court proceedings. When does the injustice on We the People STOP. When is the TRUTH the only Real Defense that is needed in the Courts?
It is said that, Not only was Thomas E. Scott's name floated for possible FBI Director by Bush, Scott was a former federal judge in Miami before he became US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Readers Remember in your Research of Stolen Patents: One Connecting Element to these Stolen Patents is the Bankruptcy Courts. So the Department of Justice Trustee somewhere along the line has to be involved. This stuff is way more then Coincidence.
Florida Rico Click Here
RICO Document
Click Here to See Documents Used to
Catch the DOJ folks Lying
Curran Howard Falsified Affidavit
More on the Donald Stone Stolen Patent Case at
www.MarylandCorruption.com
crystal
Posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal Cox
Monday, February 1, 2010
Proskauer Rose involved in an ugly dispute over fees ..A Swedish heiress has sued Proskauer Rose for nearly $9 million
WoW.. that Woman has Moxy .. and Smarts.. YES .. Woman like Kerstin Lindholm are Bringing the Light to the Dark with the Power of the Rule of Law. STOP Corrupt Attorneys.
" Swedish Heiress: Proskauer Overbilled, Churned File in Case of ...
Swedish heiress has sued Proskauer Rose for nearly $9 million, accusing the firm of manipulating its billing practices to overcharge her by millions.
In a separate malpractice claim, she alleges that the firm mishandled her suit against the jet-setting art buyer who purchased an Andy Warhol silkscreen that had been stolen from her, court records show.
The heiress of a Swedish building fortune, Kerstin Lindholm of Greenwich, Conn., retained Proskauer Rose in March 2002 to pursue claims against Peter Brant, the media mogul and Warhol enthusiast who purchased "Red Elvis" for $2.9 million in 2000 while it was on loan to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, court records show.
Brant bought the painting--worth at least $12 million in 2003--from a crooked Swedish art dealer who sold it out from under Kerstin Lindholm, according to court records and this New York Times story. The dealer eventually served prison time for the theft, but Lindholm never got the painting back"
.....
"Swedish Heiress Sues Proskauer Rose for Overbilling in Case of Stolen Warhol
A Swedish heiress has sued Proskauer Rose for nearly $9 million, accusing the firm of manipulating its billing practices to overcharge her by millions. In a separate malpractice claim, she alleges that the firm mishandled her suit against the jet-setting art buyer who purchased an Andy Warhol silkscreen that had been stolen from her, court records show.
The heiress of a Swedish building fortune, Kerstin Lindholm of Greenwich, Conn., retained Proskauer Rose in March 2002 to pursue claims against Peter Brant, the media mogul and Warhol enthusiast who purchased "Red Elvis" for $2.9 million in 2000 while it was on loan to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, court records show.
Brant bought the painting -- worth at least $12 million in 2003 -- from a crooked Swedish art dealer who sold it out from under Lindholm, according to court records and this New York Times story. The dealer eventually served prison time for the theft, but Lindholm never got the painting back.
A Connecticut judge ruled in favor of Brant in 2005.
Now Lindholm and Proskauer Rose are involved in an ugly dispute over fees that peaked earlier this month, when Lindholm sued the firm in state court in Connecticut.
And her legal team at Bello, Lapine & Cassone in Stamford, Conn., has included something of a smoking gun as an exhibit in their complaint -- an internal Proskauer memo written on letterhead bearing the name of a Proskauer Rose associate who appears to have reviewed the firm's Lindholm file at some point. (The note is undated.)
In the handwritten note, the associate writes that descriptions of Proskauer Rose 's work "may suggest double billing for same work," that "rates are quite high" and that there was an "overall excessive handling of every item in the case."
Through a spokesman, Proskauer Rose called Lindholm's allegations "entirely without merit." The associate who wrote the note, Mara Lainie Taylor, did not return a message seeking comment. Lawrence Weinstein, the lead Proskauer Rose attorney on the Brant litigation, did not return a call seeking comment.
Lindholm's lead lawyer, Lawrence Lapine, declined to comment on the case.
Proskauer Rose originally sued Lindholm in 2007 for unpaid fees.
In her new complaint, Lindholm claims Proskauer Rose estimated the case would cost her between $300,000 and $350,000, records show.
But Proskauer Rose 's bills had already hit that range in May of 2003, about 14 months into the case, and, with no end in sight, Lindholm began agitating for a discount. Proskauer Rose LLP granted her three separate discounts over the next two years, eventually agreeing to cut its hourly billing rates by 75 percent.
Even so, Lindholm claims, her monthly bills continued to increase until the firm's final bill ended up at $1.4 million, discounted from $2.8 million.
Her complaint alleges that Proskauer Rose kept the billable numbers up by "billing paralegal work at attorney rates"; "having attorneys perform paralegal work"; "billing twice for the same work"; "billing for the same services multiple times"; and "handling every item in the case in an excessive manner, a practice commonly known as churning the file." These accusations appear to have been taken from Taylor's note.
Lindholm claims she has paid more than $1 million to Proskauer Rose in legal bills so far, and the breach of fiduciary duty count in her suit seeks $850,000 -- the difference between Proskauer's original estimate and the amount she has paid.
The larger malpractice count seeks $8 million and accuses the firm of failing to pursue a claim against the Guggenheim. Lindholm believes she has a course of action because the museum should have notified her immediately when Brant asserted a claim of ownership to "Red Elvis" over the phone in 2000, according to the complaint. Had the museum done so, the suit claims, Lindholm could have stopped delivery of the painting to an address in Denmark, where the dealer arranged for its sale to Brant.
Lindholm's agent suggested Proskauer Rose LLP sue the museum, but the firm concluded she had no claim against the Guggenheim. Lindholm also pushed for a jury trial, but the firm waived her right to a jury trial and argued the Brant case before a judge instead.
The suit claims Proskauer Rose LLP did so because Lindholm wasn't paying her bills and the firm wanted to finish the case quickly. "
Proskauer Rose LLP - Kerstin Lindholm Click HERE
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430274183
http://www.ifar.org/web_registration.php?caller=/case_summary.php?docid=1248295359
http://www.museum-security.org/03/033.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/arts/
accusations-of-theft-envelop-warhol-work.html?pagewanted=all
Proskauer Rose Fraud on the Courts?
Overbilling, Corrupt Courts,Malpractice,... Proskauer Rose Complaints seem to be never ending.. Kerstin Lindholm seems to have perserved through quite a bit of injustice.. Great Job!!!
" Swedish Heiress: Proskauer Overbilled, Churned File in Case of ...
Swedish heiress has sued Proskauer Rose for nearly $9 million, accusing the firm of manipulating its billing practices to overcharge her by millions.
In a separate malpractice claim, she alleges that the firm mishandled her suit against the jet-setting art buyer who purchased an Andy Warhol silkscreen that had been stolen from her, court records show.
The heiress of a Swedish building fortune, Kerstin Lindholm of Greenwich, Conn., retained Proskauer Rose in March 2002 to pursue claims against Peter Brant, the media mogul and Warhol enthusiast who purchased "Red Elvis" for $2.9 million in 2000 while it was on loan to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, court records show.
Brant bought the painting--worth at least $12 million in 2003--from a crooked Swedish art dealer who sold it out from under Kerstin Lindholm, according to court records and this New York Times story. The dealer eventually served prison time for the theft, but Lindholm never got the painting back"
.....
"Swedish Heiress Sues Proskauer Rose for Overbilling in Case of Stolen Warhol
A Swedish heiress has sued Proskauer Rose for nearly $9 million, accusing the firm of manipulating its billing practices to overcharge her by millions. In a separate malpractice claim, she alleges that the firm mishandled her suit against the jet-setting art buyer who purchased an Andy Warhol silkscreen that had been stolen from her, court records show.
The heiress of a Swedish building fortune, Kerstin Lindholm of Greenwich, Conn., retained Proskauer Rose in March 2002 to pursue claims against Peter Brant, the media mogul and Warhol enthusiast who purchased "Red Elvis" for $2.9 million in 2000 while it was on loan to the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, court records show.
Brant bought the painting -- worth at least $12 million in 2003 -- from a crooked Swedish art dealer who sold it out from under Lindholm, according to court records and this New York Times story. The dealer eventually served prison time for the theft, but Lindholm never got the painting back.
A Connecticut judge ruled in favor of Brant in 2005.
Now Lindholm and Proskauer Rose are involved in an ugly dispute over fees that peaked earlier this month, when Lindholm sued the firm in state court in Connecticut.
And her legal team at Bello, Lapine & Cassone in Stamford, Conn., has included something of a smoking gun as an exhibit in their complaint -- an internal Proskauer memo written on letterhead bearing the name of a Proskauer Rose associate who appears to have reviewed the firm's Lindholm file at some point. (The note is undated.)
In the handwritten note, the associate writes that descriptions of Proskauer Rose 's work "may suggest double billing for same work," that "rates are quite high" and that there was an "overall excessive handling of every item in the case."
Through a spokesman, Proskauer Rose called Lindholm's allegations "entirely without merit." The associate who wrote the note, Mara Lainie Taylor, did not return a message seeking comment. Lawrence Weinstein, the lead Proskauer Rose attorney on the Brant litigation, did not return a call seeking comment.
Lindholm's lead lawyer, Lawrence Lapine, declined to comment on the case.
Proskauer Rose originally sued Lindholm in 2007 for unpaid fees.
In her new complaint, Lindholm claims Proskauer Rose estimated the case would cost her between $300,000 and $350,000, records show.
But Proskauer Rose 's bills had already hit that range in May of 2003, about 14 months into the case, and, with no end in sight, Lindholm began agitating for a discount. Proskauer Rose LLP granted her three separate discounts over the next two years, eventually agreeing to cut its hourly billing rates by 75 percent.
Even so, Lindholm claims, her monthly bills continued to increase until the firm's final bill ended up at $1.4 million, discounted from $2.8 million.
Her complaint alleges that Proskauer Rose kept the billable numbers up by "billing paralegal work at attorney rates"; "having attorneys perform paralegal work"; "billing twice for the same work"; "billing for the same services multiple times"; and "handling every item in the case in an excessive manner, a practice commonly known as churning the file." These accusations appear to have been taken from Taylor's note.
Lindholm claims she has paid more than $1 million to Proskauer Rose in legal bills so far, and the breach of fiduciary duty count in her suit seeks $850,000 -- the difference between Proskauer's original estimate and the amount she has paid.
The larger malpractice count seeks $8 million and accuses the firm of failing to pursue a claim against the Guggenheim. Lindholm believes she has a course of action because the museum should have notified her immediately when Brant asserted a claim of ownership to "Red Elvis" over the phone in 2000, according to the complaint. Had the museum done so, the suit claims, Lindholm could have stopped delivery of the painting to an address in Denmark, where the dealer arranged for its sale to Brant.
Lindholm's agent suggested Proskauer Rose LLP sue the museum, but the firm concluded she had no claim against the Guggenheim. Lindholm also pushed for a jury trial, but the firm waived her right to a jury trial and argued the Brant case before a judge instead.
The suit claims Proskauer Rose LLP did so because Lindholm wasn't paying her bills and the firm wanted to finish the case quickly. "
Proskauer Rose LLP - Kerstin Lindholm Click HERE
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202430274183
http://www.ifar.org/web_registration.php?caller=/case_summary.php?docid=1248295359
http://www.museum-security.org/03/033.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/arts/
accusations-of-theft-envelop-warhol-work.html?pagewanted=all
Proskauer Rose Fraud on the Courts?
Rico Complaint - Pattern and History - How Many Inventors has Foley and Lardner Committed Crimes Against?
If you are an Inventor that has EVER been Taken Advantage of, Threatened, Bullied, had your Car Bombed or been set up in any way by Foley and Lardner Please Email me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com - I am a Blogger, an Investigative Journalist and I am Investigating Stolen Patent Cases to Write about on my Stolen Patent Blog Network and my Industry Whistleblower Network.
My intention is simply to Get the Inventor's Story Told and Expose Corrupt Patent Attorneys in the hopes that inventors rights will be defender by the Courts of the United States of America.
If your Patent was Flat OUT Stolen by your Patent Attorney or connected Patent Attorneys they recommended, email me your Story - Crystal@CrystalCox.com - a link to your blogs or videos on your story and Let's Get you Heard.
If Foley and Larder or Connected parties have been in any way involved in you NOT getting Legal Rights or Compensation to your Patent - Email me your Story.
Foley and Larder is NOT above the Law, Not Above a RICO Lawsuit and NOT above the Truth. You are NOT alone. Foley and Lardner Patent Attorneys have done this to Others, Step Up - Tell your Foley and Lardner Story and Get Heard.
Foley and Lardner have no Moral, Ethical or Legal Right to Do this to YOU. Email your Story, your Blog, your Documents, or post yourself at www.DeniedPatent.ning.com and get your Foley and Lardner Patent Theft Story Told.
If you have experienced Patent Infringement, Stolen Patents, Stolen Technology, Corrupt Patent Attorneys, Patent Fraud or a Disclosure of Confidential Patent Information by Foley and Lardner and anyone associated with Foley and Lardner EMAIL me and Get your Story Told.
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
Truth Seeker
Blogger
Investigative Journalist
Crystal Cox
My intention is simply to Get the Inventor's Story Told and Expose Corrupt Patent Attorneys in the hopes that inventors rights will be defender by the Courts of the United States of America.
If your Patent was Flat OUT Stolen by your Patent Attorney or connected Patent Attorneys they recommended, email me your Story - Crystal@CrystalCox.com - a link to your blogs or videos on your story and Let's Get you Heard.
If Foley and Larder or Connected parties have been in any way involved in you NOT getting Legal Rights or Compensation to your Patent - Email me your Story.
Foley and Larder is NOT above the Law, Not Above a RICO Lawsuit and NOT above the Truth. You are NOT alone. Foley and Lardner Patent Attorneys have done this to Others, Step Up - Tell your Foley and Lardner Story and Get Heard.
Foley and Lardner have no Moral, Ethical or Legal Right to Do this to YOU. Email your Story, your Blog, your Documents, or post yourself at www.DeniedPatent.ning.com and get your Foley and Lardner Patent Theft Story Told.
If you have experienced Patent Infringement, Stolen Patents, Stolen Technology, Corrupt Patent Attorneys, Patent Fraud or a Disclosure of Confidential Patent Information by Foley and Lardner and anyone associated with Foley and Lardner EMAIL me and Get your Story Told.
Crystal@CrystalCox.com
Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
Truth Seeker
Blogger
Investigative Journalist
Crystal Cox
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)