Proskauer Rose LLP, Proskauer Law Firm, Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne and others Charged with Conspiracy and Fraud.. IViewit is Next. 13 Trillion Dollar Scandal, USPTO, DOJ, SEC, knows of Massive Shareholder Fraud.

"Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne and others Charged with Conspiracy and Fraud in R. Allen Stanford Ponzi by Court Receiver for Victims Ralph Janvey.

Iviewit Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Publishes Draft Motion to US Appeals Court involving direct ties to the Iviewit Stolen Patents and Sir R. Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff, Galleon, Dreier, MF Global scams and more.

Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne and others Charged with Conspiracy and Fraud in R. Allen Stanford Ponzi by Court Receiver for Victims Ralph Janvey.

Stanford Trial Drags Former Proskauer, Chadbourne Partner Back into Spotlight
Brian Baxter The American Lawyer February 8, 2012

View Article Click Below
http://www.law.com/jsp/tal/PubArticleTAL.jsp?id=1202541880071&slreturn=1

—–
Iviewit Inventor Eliot I. Bernstein Publishes Draft Motion to US Appeals Court involving direct ties to the Iviewit Stolen Patents and Sir R. Allen Stanford, Bernie Madoff, Galleon, Dreier, MF Global scams and more
—

IVIEWIT DRAFT MOTION TO SECOND CIRCUIT COURT 

OF APPEALS OF CONFLICTS

Case No. 08-4873-CV

—-

United States Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit
Justices: Debra Ann Livingston, Richard C. Wesley, Peter W. Hall and- Ralph K. Winter, Jr.

—-

Eliot Ivan Bernstein, Pro Se Plaintiff – Appellant

–v–

Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee et al. Defendants / Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CASE 07 Civ. 11196 (Shira Anne Scheindlin)

LEGALLY Related Case to Iviewit RICO by Federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin to:

(07 Civ. 9599) (SAS-AJP) WHISTLEBLOWER LAWSUIT of Christine C. Anderson, Esq. v. the State of New York, et al.
(Anderson, a Former New York Supreme Court Attorney)

Cases Legally Related to Anderson / Iviewit:

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.

5. Related Cases @ US District Court - Southern District NY

6. 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

7. 07cv11196 Bernstein, et al. v Appellate Division First Department Disciplinary Committee, et al.

8. 07cv11612 Esposito v The State of New York, et al.

9. 08cv00526 Capogrosso v New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al.

10. 08cv02391 McKeown v The State of New York, et al.

11. 08cv02852 Galison v The State of New York, et al.

12. 08cv03305 Carvel v The State of New York, et al.

13. 08cv4053 Gizella Weisshaus v The State of New York, et al.

14. 08cv4438 Suzanne McCormick v The State of New York, et al.

15. 08 cv 6368 John L. Petrec-Tolino v. The State of New York

16. 06cv05169 McNamara v The State of New York, et al.

ELIOT IVAN BERNSTEIN, PRO SE
2753 N.W. 34TH STREET BOCA RATON, FLORIDA 33434-3459
(561) 245.8588 (o) / (561) 886.7628 (c) / (561) 245-8644 (f)
iviewit@iviewit.tv / www.iviewit.tv

Table of Contents

Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure Form… 6

Motion to.. 22

I. Introduction.. 23

a. Christine c. Anderson, Esq., new york supreme court attorney Whistleblower Testimony Reveals a Criminal RICO Cartel Coup D’ÉTAT on government at the highest outposts of law and regulation.. 23

b. Meet the coupsters.. 26

c. The Controlled Demolition of World Markets by Attorneys at Law operating as a criminal rico enterprise and infiltrating senior pUBLIC offices, including within the department of justice and the courts.. 39

d. Where is the Justice? THe CRIMINAL role of this court in AIDING AND ABETTING the criminal rico enterprise.. 48

II. IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFY ALL Justices and other Members of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals ( this Court ) whom have currently acted in this Lawsuit in anyway whatsoever, for their part in Aiding and Abetting Fraud on the Court, Obstruction of Justice, Denial of Due Process, HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS and more.. 69

III. Remand, Halt and Rehear this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit due to the New York State Attorney General’s now Admitted and Acknowledged Conflicts of Interest, both past and present, in acting ILLEGALLY as Counsel their office and additionally for 39 plus State Defendant/Actors in this Lawsuit, by Violating Public Office Rules & Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and State & Federal Law 83

IV. Remand and Rehear this Lawsuit due to the New York State Supreme Court Attorney Whistleblower Christine C. Anderson’s Felony Criminal Allegations against SENIOR Court Officials, Public Officials and more. 92

HALT THIS LAWSUIT and the “Legally Related” Lawsuits, pending investigations of Whistleblower Anderson’s FELONY CRIMINAL Allegations against Members of, the New York Attorney General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, the New York District Attorney’s Office, Justices of the courts, Officers of the New York Supreme Court, the New York Supreme Court Disciplinary Departments, officers of the new york supreme court disciplinary departments and others, based on FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS in US Federal Court and before the New York Senate Judiciary Committee.

 The Felony Crimes alleged by Anderson, directly relate to this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, including having several identical New York State Public Official Actor/Defendants and the allegations are wholly germane to the nexus of the Iviewit RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit Crimes alleged. Further the two lawsuits are “Legally Related” by Federal Judge Shira Scheindlin. 96

V. Remove and report ALL other Conflicts of Interest, violations of public office rules, violations of judicial cannons, attorney conduct codes and state and federal law, currently in place in this RICO Lawsuit and related cases, in order to impart fair and impartial DUE PROCESS UNDER LAW… 96

VI.   DEMAND that ALL parties to this Lawsuit going forward, including but not limited to, Court Justices & Officials, Attorneys at Law, Prosecutors, Clerks, etc. sign Affirmed Conflict of Interest Disclosures, identical to the one attached herein, acknowledging PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITIES for any violation, prior to, ANY further Action by ANYONE in this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit. 97

VII.   Demand for Justices of the SECOND CIRCUIT to turn themselves in to State and Federal Criminal Authorities to ANSWER to filed CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against them and served upon them.. 97

VIII.   Alleged crimes ongoing by p. stephen lamont et al. both known and unknown and fraud on this court, the us district court and now other courts including the supreme court and more. 98

IX.   PLAINTIFF SEEKS LEAVE TO AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT TO ADD NEW DEFENDANTS AND NEW ALLEGED CRIMES NEWLY DISCOVERED.. 98

X.   Relief.. 99

Exhibit 1 – conflict of interest disclosure PARTIAL LIST OF KNOWN CONFLICTED PARTIES. 100

Exhibit 2. 106

EXHIBIT 3 – Criminal Complaint S. 108

Exhibit 4 – Ethics Complaint. 108

MOTION TO:

· Remand and Rehear this Lawsuit due to the New York State Attorney General’s now Admitted and Acknowledged Conflicts of Interest both past and present, in acting ILLEGALLY as Counsel for 39 plus State Defendant/Actors in this Lawsuit by Violating Public Office Rules &; Regulations, Attorney Conduct Codes and State & Federal Law.

· Remand and Rehear this Lawsuit due to the New York State Supreme Court’s Attorney Whistleblower, Christine C. Anderson’s (“Anderson”) Felony Criminal Allegations against SENIOR Court Officials, Public Officials et al.

· HALT THIS LAWSUIT and the “Legally Related” Lawsuits, pending investigations of Whistleblower Anderson’s FELONY CRIMINAL Allegations against Members of the New York Attorney General’s Office, the US Attorney’s Office, the New York District Attorney’s Office, New York State Supreme Court, the New York Supreme Court Disciplinary Departments and others.

FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS EXPOSED in US Federal District Court, THIS COURT and before the New York Senate Judiciary Committee by the HEROIC TESTIMONY and SWORN STATEMENTS of NEW YORK SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY WHISTLEBLOWER, CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON.

· IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFY ALL Justices and other Members of the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals ( this Court ) whom have acted to this point in this Lawsuit in any capacity whatsoever, for Aiding and Abetting Fraud on the Court, Obstruction of Justice, Denial of Due Process and more.

· Remove ALL other Conflicts of Interest currently in place in this Lawsuit in order to implement FAIR & IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS UNDER LAW.

· DEMAND that ALL parties to this Lawsuit going forward, including but not limited to, Court Justices & Officials, Attorneys at Law, Prosecutors, Clerks, et al. Sign and Affirm Conflict of Interest Disclosures identical to the one attached herein, acknowledging PERSONAL and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITIES for any violation, prior to, ANY further Action by ANYONE in this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit.

· Demand for Justices and others named herein of this Court to turn themselves in to the appropriate State and Federal Criminal Authorities to ANSWER to filed CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS against them and served upon them.

——

Caution! if you have not signed the attached Conflict of Interest Disclosure form and returned it as instructed and you continue to act in any manner whatsoever in these matters, Criminal Charges will be brought against you, for Obstruction of Justice, Aiding & Abetting a Criminal RICO Organization and More. see the attached Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form for further information regarding your potential personal and professional liabilities.

—–

I. Introduction

“What country before ever existed a century &; a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon &; pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

The “Tree of Liberty” letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Smith http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

A. NEW YORK SUPREME COURT WHISTLEBLOWER ATTORNEY, CHRISTINE C. ANDERSON, ESQ. (“Anderson”) MAKES FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS IN US FEDERAL COURT AND BEFORE THE NEW YORK SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SENIOR RANKING OFFICIALS OF THE US ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, THE NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, THE NEW YORK SUPREME COURT DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENTS, “FAVORED LAWYERS AND LAW FIRMS” [Footnote 3] and names a “CLEANER” [Footnote 4] , as revealed in federal court testimony, a one Naomi Goldstein.

THESE ALLEGATIONS DEMAND IMMEDIATE REPORTING, INVESTIGATION AND HALTING OF THE LEGALLY RELATED IVIEWIT RICO & ANTITRUST LAWSUIT IN ORDER TO BEGIN INVESTIGATIONS TO IDENTIFY AND PROSECUTE THOSE FINGERED BY WHISTLE BLOWER ANDERSON and OTHERS.

—

[3] From Anderson’s Sworn Statement to the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, “Specifically, I discovered and reported that employees of the DDC had engaged in, inter alia, the “whitewashing” [of] complaints of misconduct leveled against certain “select” attorneys and law firms.

This “whitewashing” sometimes involved burying cases or destroying evidence, so that certain complaints were inevitably, unavoidably, dismissed. I witnessed this destruction of evidence myself. Other reported misconduct involves victimizing attorneys lacking privileged positions or connections.”

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=365

[4] “Legal Document: Request for Discovery” Posted on July 22, 2011 by Fred Celani

http://fredcelani.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/request-for-discovery/

—
The “Legally Related” Federal Lawsuit of New York Supreme Court Veteran Senior Supreme Court Disciplinary Department Attorney and Expert in Attorney Criminal Misconduct Complaints, Whistleblower Christine Anderson, Esq., by Federal Judge Shira Anne Scheindlin to this RICO & ANTITRUST Lawsuit, exposes from the inside, a legal conspiracy of corruption involving the highest levels of Regulatory, Prosecutorial and Judicial Public Offices both State and Federal. Heroism is a word earned through action. The Whistleblowing Efforts of Anderson, another New York Supreme Court Attorney Whistleblower and Hero, Nicole Corrado, Esq., and, a Sitting New York Supreme Court Justice, Honorable Duane A. Hart, Esq., all cited herein, should be the Moniker of HEROISM for others in the legal profession to follow.

These Whistleblowers Expose Corruption at the Top of Government, including the Courts, this Court, the Department of Justice, the New York Attorney General and others.

They further provide the World with an understanding of how America’s Financial System has melted top down, from rigged economic breakdowns and controlled demolition of world markets through fraud, with no Regulators or Prosecutors or Courts to stop it, in fact, all of them Aiding and Abetting the crimes.

Nobody attempting to RECOVER the stolen funds for the PEOPLE, as all of the Top Government Officials charged with enforcement of the Law, appear on the take and part of the crimes according to these Whistleblowers. These Whistleblowing efforts expose how and why no one on Wall Street/Greed Street/Fraud Street has been charged with Criminal Acts, despite massive and overwhelming evidence of CRIMINAL ACTS and FRAUD.

Further exposed, is why none of the Stolen Loot from these Economic Crimes have been recovered back to the People. What is unveiled is a COUP D’ÉTAT on the HIGHEST OUTPOSTS OF LAW & ORDER in the United States and yet not a single story in the Mainstream Media aka US Pravda Press, regarding these shocking allegations by inside Whistleblowers.

Exposed by these HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWING EFFORTS is a REVOLVING DOOR between a licentious GROUP OF LAW FIRMS and ATTORNEYS AT LAW, acting in both PRIVATE PRACTICE and PUBLIC OFFICE, working together in CONSPIRACY and forming a RICO CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION with tentacles embedded at the highest outposts of the US Government in order to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE for the CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.

Anderson, Corrado and Other Public Office Whistleblowers cited herein, also provide explanation for why Judges and Attorneys at Law are now desperately trying to grant themselves immunity for felony crimes and attempting to use the State Attorney General Offices and other Government officials as accomplice in the cover-up.

Immunity for ATTORNEYS AT LAW for their role in TORTURE CRIMES, WAR CRIMES and ECONOMIC CRIMES, crimes that include the CREATION OF ILLEGAL/FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL & INSURANCE CONTRACTS that led to the RIGGED HOUSING and MARKET COLLAPSES, that led to MILLIONS OF VERY ILLEGAL FORECLOSURES and left MILLIONS UNEMPLOYED AND STARVING. Seeking immunity for crime, as a legal defense is both futile and an obvious admission of guilt, which will never hold in a fair and impartial court of law?

The attempts to gain immunity for FELONY CRIMINAL ACTS shows culpability in the crimes, exposing fear by the guilty of retribution of the day when the “long arm of the law” swings back.

Fear that they will hang for their crimes against Humanity, their War Crimes (Illegal Undeclared Wars of Aggression, Torture, Misappropriation of Public funds by Congress for Undeclared Wars, Economic Terrorism and more) and they must hope for dirty courts to clear them forever.

Whistleblowing comes at a price to Whistleblowers in this new environment of a CRIMINAL GOVERNMENT.

Christine Anderson, Corrado, Hart and others, including PLAINTIFF have been through hell to bring this INFORMATION TO LIGHT and where this Court should acknowledge Anderson, Corrado and the others who have come forth for their HEROISM, suspiciously, they do not.

These are TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS, HEROES and ROLE MODELS OF ETHICS shunned by the very legal system they work in.

We instead find this Court currently attempting to ILLEGALLY DISMISS Anderson’s WHISTLEBLOWER Lawsuit and the “legally related” cases prior to investigations and hearings of the criminal acts exposed by government officials against other Senior Ranking Officials.

We find THIS COURT attempting to BURY THE FELONY CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES EXPOSED BY CREDIBLE WITNESSES in a FEDERAL COURT by “SWEEPING THEM UNDER THE RUG,”

PRIOR TO INVESTIGATIONS REQUIRED BY LAW, as more fully defined herein. Therefore, Plaintiff starts this Motion in Honor.

A Tip of the Hat to the TRUE PATRIOTS NAMED HEREIN AND THEIR HEROIC WHISTLEBLOWING EFFORTS TO BLOW THE LID OFF ONE OF THE LARGEST CORRUPTION STORIES OF ALL TIME, PLACING MEMBERS OF THIS COURT RIGHT IN THE CENTER of world market fraud and more, A ROOT OF THE PROBLEM."

Source and Full Article

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=594

More on the iViewit Story

http://iviewit.tv/

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

David Carr of the New York Times pretending to do investigative reporting, yet David Carr LIES, turns victims into criminals. And my Guess is the Philadelphia Media Network CEO Greg Osberg story is not Different. David Carr is a PROVEN Liar, and has No accountability for his LIES.

Philip Falcone, Harbinger Capital Partners, Response to Allegations of the Honorable Charles E. Grassley Regarding Lightsquared. Senator Grassley, Philip Falcone, Deere and Company, Verizon, ATT, Clearwire, Trimble Navigations, James Kirkland, GPS Industry Council.

Philip Falcone seems to be Fighting Back. Seems to me that Senator Grassley flat out lied about the events and issues surrounding Lightsquared. Read the Philip Falcone Lightsquared Letter from legal council regarding Senator Charles E. Grassley's accusation, which seem to be false, fabricated and completely biased to protect his buddies at John Deere, Verizon, ATT, Clearwire, and Lockhead Martin.

Philip Falcone Regarding Senator Charles Grassley Lies


Max Baucus, Senator Charles Grassley, Deere and Company, Trimble Navigations, James Kirkland, Verizon, Craig McCaw, Harbinger Capital, Philip Falcone, Grassley vs. Lightsquared, Lightsquared, Todd Ruelle,

Philip Falcone. LIGHTSQUARED AND GPS – THE FACTS. The GPS Industry had a Decade to Upgrade and now they are STOPPING fair competition to save them MONEY. Senator Grassley NEEDS to Wake Up to the Facts.

"For the last decade, LightSquared has planned to deploy a terrestrial network, and worked with the GPS community to make sure its network would not interfere with GPS.

LIGHTSQUARED’S SERVICE HAS BEEN EXPECTED FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS

· In 2001, LightSquared proposed using satellite spectrum for a fully-capable ground network.  In 2002, after discussions with the GPS industry representatives, LightSquared agreed to curtail any portion of its signal that crossed into GPS frequencies.  This agreement imposed restrictions that were 1000 times stricter than what the FCC rules eventually required.

· In 2003, the FCC adopted initial rules allowing LightSquared’s ground network to operate near GPS.  These rules were adopted after a full review by DoD, FAA and all other interested government agencies.  As the FCC said recently, “extensive terrestrial operations have been anticipated in [LightSquared’s spectrum band] for at least 8 years.”  FCC MSS Flexibility Order, ¶ 27 (Apr. 6, 2011).

THE GPS INDUSTRY UNDERSTOOD THE SCOPE OF LIGHTSQUARED’S NETWORK

· The 2003 rules allowed LightSquared to deploy over 10,000 base stations.

· In 2003, the U.S. GPS Industry Council (“USGIC”) stated that the restrictions of the 2002 agreement were necessary to protect GPS against “[t]he increased user density from potentially millions of MSS mobile terminals operating in ATC mode . . . [and] potentially tens of thousands of ATC wireless base stations.” Reply Comments of USGIC, IB Docket No. 01-185, at 2 (Sept. 4, 2003) (emphasis added).

· In 2004, the USGIC supported the LightSquared application for authority to operate a ground network under the 2003 rules, stating that the 2002 agreement was “intended to protect GPS receivers and at the same time allow [LightSquared] to maximize the utility of its ATC [ground network] service to its users.”  Letter from USGIC to FCC (Mar. 24, 2004).

· In 2005, the FCC removed all limits on the number of base stations LightSquared could build and increased their permissible power to 1.6 kw, the level at which LightSquared now plans to operate.  Again, this decision was reviewed by all interested government agencies and was not challenged by USGIC.

· Beginning in 2006 and continuing to 2010, LightSquared disclosed its intent to build a wireless network using tens of thousands of base stations in its annual filings with the SEC.

THE GPS INDUSTRY KNEW ABOUT LIGHTSQUARED’S PLANNED POWER LEVELS AND DID NOT OBJECT

· In 2009, LightSquared asked the FCC to increase the power levels of its base stations by approximately 10 times to 15 kw, to match the power levels at which other wireless networks are permitted to operate.

· USGIC did not object to even those higher power levels.  It objected only to the possibility of interference into the GPS band from low-power indoor femtocells, an objection it withdrew in August 2009 after reaching agreement with LightSquared.

· In March 2010, the FCC approved LightSquared’s increased power levels.  As with all previous FCC proceedings, the order was issued after a public proceeding and was fully coordinated with all interested federal government agencies.  Neither GPSIC, nor any other party, filed for reconsideration or review of this order.

· Also in March 2010, the FCC required LightSquared to build a ground network reaching 260 million people by the end of 2015.  Neither GPSIC, nor any other party, filed for reconsideration or review of this requirement.

LIGHTSQUARED IS DOING EVERYTHING IT CAN TO WORK WITH GPS TO ADDRESS ISSUES RAISED ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO

· In September 2010, USGIC raised for the first time — in a general mobile satellite proceeding -- the possibility that some GPS receivers may be subject to interference because they can be overpowered by signals transmitted by LightSquared inside the spectrum the FCC licensed to Lightsquared.

· In November 2010, LightSquared applied to allow devices onto its ground network that do not also communicate with its satellite.  This application did not change the power, number, deployment or any other technical characteristic of LightSquared’s base stations.  USGIC raised the same objection it raised in September.

· Although the interference issue was irrelevant to this application, LightSquared, in January 2010, proposed a rigorous program of testing to determine the extent of the susceptibility of GPS receivers to LightSquared’s transmissions, which the FCC made a condition of granting LightSquared’s application on Jan. 26, 2011.

· The FCC validated the GPS testing process a few weeks ago by unanimous Commission vote, noting USGIC’s September 2010 comments and the cooperative testing program, and stating that “responsibility for protecting services rests not only on new entrants but also on incumbent users themselves, who must use receivers that reasonably discriminate against reception of signals outside their allocated spectrum.”  FCC MSS Flexibility Order, ¶ 27 (Apr. 6, 2011).

Look Deep at what Senator Grassley is Up to, he is Connected to Monsanto, John Deere, and Verizon. Do your Homework.

Philip Falcone on the Lightsquared Issue. Harbinger Capital Partners, Senator Charles Grassley, Lightsquared GPS Issue. ATT, John Deere, Verizon, Clearwire Conspire to STOP Competition.

Philip Falcone, Lightsquared. Senator Charles Grassley. Harbinger Capital, ATT Lobbyists, Verizon Conspired to STOP Lightsquared?

http://www.mssspectrum.com/2011/08/harbinger-capital-phil-falcone-cnbc.html

GPS Council, FCC, and the GPS Industry knew for over a Decade. Verizon and ATT are afraid of a Little Competition so the Good Ol' Boys are Circling the Wagon to STOP Lightsquared, Look Deeper Folks.

Senator Charles Grassley . Lightsquared, GPS Council

Warner Bros., Motion Pictures Association and Motion Picture Lobbyists have the Nerve to go after Kim Dotcom, MegaUpload when Warner Bros. has STOLEN the iViewit Technology and in imaging and used it for over a Decade.

STOP protecting Warner Bros., Motion Pictures Association and Motion Picture Lobbyists and ruining the lives of the little guy who is creating the technology and outsmarting them.

Demand that Warner Bros., Motion Pictures Association and Motion Picture Lobbyists are not above the law that they get Congressman and Senators to enforce on their behalf for their own personal motives and greed.

I read in the USA Today paper version, that the Motion Picture Lobbyists, Warner Brothers and the Motion Pictures Association of America are the ones who complained that Kim Dotcom was basically stealing their revenue, thing is Warner Bros. has been stealing ALL video they us in ALL imaging from the technology of iviewit for over a decade. Even in the bold face of signed non-compete agreements over a decade ago.  
http://www.iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20010822%20-%20SIGNED%20Warner%20Bros%20Agreement%20AOL.pdf

Why does the DOJ, SEC, the USPTO, the Supreme Court, ALL ignore the rights of the iViewit Inventors? And protect big corpporations such as  the Motion Picture Lobbyists, Warner Brothers and the Motion Pictures Association of America?

Links to the MegaUpload Story

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/story/2012-01-30/megaupload-data/52884574/1

http://www.aaronkellylaw.com/online-intellectual-property/megaupload-website-has-megaproblems/

Motion Pictures Association of America ,Jack Valenti,
http://iviewit.tv/senatecultbill.htm

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=274

Open Letter to Warner Bros. Shareholders regarding massive fraud, collusion and cover ups that one day shareholder will pay the bill for.
http://www.investigativeblogger.com/2011/03/twx-open-letter-to-time-warner-warner.html

http://www.jeffreybewkes.com/

SEC Complaint Naming Warner Bros
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100206%20FINAL%20SEC%20FBI%20and%20more%20COMPLAINT%20Against%20Warner%20Bros%20Time%20Warner%20AOL176238nscolorlow.pdf

iViewit RICO Complaint
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20080509%20FINAL%20AMENDED%20COMPLAINT%20AND%20RICO%20SIGNED%20COPY%20MED.pdf

Yes the MegaUpload arrest was political motivated, and yet another protection of Warner Bros. and the Elite corporation and tech companies.

More Links to the iViewit Story, and Warner Bros. has the Nerve to Complain and Lobbyists get the SEC, FBI, DOJ to act on the complaint when for over a decade Warner Bros. Has been using the iViewit Technology for Free

http://www.federalricolawsuit.com/search/label/Foley%20and%20Lardner

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?p=274

http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2007%2008%20RUBENSTEIN%20KRANE%20JOAO%20MOTION%20FINAL%20BOOKMARKED.pdf

http://www.deniedpatent.com/

http://iviewit.tv/wordpress/?tag=andrew-cuomo

Eugene Volokh, Mayer Brown and Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC file a Motion for a New Trial in Obsidian V. Cox, Free Speech Case out of Portland Oregon.

"Motion for New Trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Eugene Volokh • January 5, 2012 2:08 am

Our local counsel Benjamin Souede (Angeli Law Group LLC) and I have just filed a motion for new trial in Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox.

As you may recall, the Nov. 30 opinion in that case concluded, among other things, that only members of the institutional media are entitled to certain First Amendment libel law protections.

The motion for new trial argues that the First Amendment applies equally to all who speak to the public, whether or not they belong to the institutional media. Here is Part I.A of our memorandum in support of the motion:

Even if plaintiffs were not public figures, defendant was still entitled to the protections of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment applies equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public: “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.”

Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 905 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). In support of this holding, the Court favorably quoted five Justices’ opinions in a libel case — Dun &; Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 784 (1985) (Brennan, J., joined by Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., dissenting), and id. at 773 (White, J., concurring in judgment) — which expressly concluded that “in the context of defamation law, the rights of the institutional media are no greater and no less than those enjoyed by other individuals or organizations engaged in the same activities,” id. at 784 (a view expressly approved by Justice White, id. at 773).

And the Court in Citizens United went on to specifically mention that its “‘reject[ion]’” of any greater protection for the institutional press over other speakers stemmed partly from the realities of the Internet age: “With the advent of the Internet and the decline of print and broadcast media, moreover, the line between the media and others who wish to comment on political and social issues becomes far more blurred.” 130 S. Ct. at 905–06.

Indeed, the principle that the institutional press and others who speak to the public have the same First Amendment rights has been applied by the Court in case after case since the 1930s. See, e.g., Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938) (stating that the freedom of the press “embraces pamphlets and leaflets” as well as “newspapers and periodicals,” and indeed “comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion”);

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 265–66 (1964) (applying the same First Amendment protection to the newspaper defendant and to the non-media defendants who placed an advertisement in the newspaper); Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64 (1964) (applying the rule of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan to a speaker who was not a member of the institutional press);

Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 357–58 (1965) (same, where the speaker was an arrestee who conveyed statements to the sheriff and to wire services alleging that his arrest stemmed from a “diabolical plot,” Henry v. Collins, 158 So.2d 28, 31 (Miss. 1963));

First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 782 n.18 (1978) (rejecting the “suggestion that communication by corporate members of the institutional press is entitled to greater constitutional protection than the same communication by [non-institutional-press businesses]”); Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 669–70 (1991) (concluding that the press gets no special immunity from laws that apply to others, including laws — such as copyright law — that target communication);

Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, 525 & n.8 (2001) (concluding that, in deciding whether defendants could be held liable under statutes banning the redistribution of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, “we draw no distinction between the media respondents and [the non-institutional-media respondent],” and citing New York Times and First Nat’l Bank of Boston as support for that conclusion).

All the federal circuits that have considered the question have likewise held that the First Amendment defamation rules apply equally to the institutional press and to others who speak to the public. Flamm v. Am. Ass’n of Univ. Women, 201 F.3d 144, 149 (2d Cir. 2000); Avins v. White, 627 F.2d 637, 649 (3d Cir. 1980); Snyder v. Phelps, 580 F.3d 206, 219 n.13 (4th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011); In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig., 797 F.2d 632, 642 (8th Cir. 1986); Garcia v. Bd. of Educ., 777 F.2d 1403, 1410 (10th Cir. 1985); Davis v. Schuchat, 510 F.2d 731, 734 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1975). As the Second Circuit put it in Flamm, “a distinction drawn according to whether the defendant is a member of the media or not is untenable,” even in private-figure cases. 201 F.3d at 149.

And while the Ninth Circuit has not specifically discussed the question, it has indeed cited Gertz even where a non-institutional-press speaker was involved. See Newcombe v. Adolf Coors Co., 157 F.3d 686, 694 n.4 (9th Cir. 1998) (citing Gertz for the proposition that a “private person who is allegedly defamed” must show “that the defamation was due to the negligence of the defendant,” in a case where the defendant was not a media organization).

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning with regard to the First Amendment newsgatherer’s privilege is instructive for First Amendment cases more generally. In Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 1993), the Ninth Circuit confronted the question whether the newsgatherer’s privilege applies only to the institutional press or also extends to book authors.

Plaintiffs argued that a person who was writing a book “has no standing to invoke the journalist’s privilege because book authors are not members of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.” Id. at 1293.

But the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected that view. It found “persuasive” “the Second Circuit’s reasoning” that “it makes no difference whether ‘[t]he intended manner of dissemination [was] by newspaper, magazine, book, public or private broadcast medium, [or] handbill’ because ‘“[t]he press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.”’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir. 1987), which in turn quoted Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)).

And the Ninth Circuit concluded that “[h]ence, the critical question for deciding whether a person may invoke the journalist’s privilege is whether she is gathering news for dissemination to the public,” id., not whether she is working for the institutional media.

The same reasoning applies to the First Amendment defamation law rules, which are even more clearly secured by First Amendment precedents than are the First Amendment journalist privilege rules. See, e.g., McKevitt v. Pallasch, 339 F.3d 530, 531–32 (7th Cir. 2003) (taking the view that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents do not in fact recognize a newsgatherer’s privilege).

Anyone who — like defendant — is disseminating material to the public is fully protected by the First Amendment precedents, whether or not she is a “member[] of the institutionalized print or broadcast media.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court cases cited above did not turn on whether the defendants were trained as journalists, were affiliated with news entities, engaged in fact-checking or editing, disclosed conflicts of interest, kept careful notes, promised confidentiality, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story.

But see Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox, 2011 WL 5999334, *5 (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2011) (concluding that the defendant was not protected by Gertz because “[d]efendant fails to bring forth any evidence suggestive of her status as a journalist,” and that, “[f]or example, there is no evidence of (1) any education in journalism; (2) any credentials or proof of any affiliation with any recognized news entity; (3) proof of adherence to journalistic standards such as editing, fact-checking, or disclosures of conflicts of interest; (4) keeping notes of conversations and interviews conducted; (5) mutual understanding or agreement of confidentiality between the defendant and his/her sources; (6) creation of an independent product rather than assembling writings and postings of others;

or (7) contacting ‘the other side’ to get both sides of a story”). The First Amendment fully protects the partisan polemicists in Citizens United v. FEC, the political activist in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the self-interested bank in First Nat’l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the disgruntled defendant in Henry v. Collins, the elected district attorney in Garrison, the activists in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, and the Jehovah’s Witness pamphleteers in Lovell v. City of Griffin. It equally fully protects defendant.

In footnotes from a few cases from 1979 to 1990, the Court did leave open the possibility that some of its First Amendment defamation rules would only apply to the institutional press. See, e.g., Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20 n.6 (1990). And a few other courts, including the Oregon Supreme Court, expressly held that such First Amendment defamation rules, and especially the Gertz v. Robert Welch protections, apply only to the institutional press. See, e.g., Wheeler v. Green, 593 P.2d 777, 784–85 (Or. 1979).

But while the Oregon Supreme Court’s decision establishes what Oregon state libel law is, it is the judgments of the United States Supreme Court that are controlling on the First Amendment question. The United States Supreme Court has never held that the institutional press enjoys such extra rights.

All the federal courts of appeals that have considered this question have specifically held that the institutional press lacks any such extra rights. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United expressly closed the door that the earlier footnotes left open, making clear that a speaker’s First Amendment rights do not turn on whether she is a member of the institutional press."

Source of Post Quote and More
http://volokh.com/2012/01/05/motion-for-new-trial-in-obsidian-finance-group-llc-v-cox/

Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal L. Cox, Investigative Blogger, Motion for New Trial

Obsidian V. Cox - New Trial Motion. Eugene Volokh, Benjamin Souede



Free Speech, Shield Laws, Retraction Laws, Bankruptcy Courts, Bloggers Rights, Tonkon Torp Law Firm, Obsidian Finance Group, David Brown, Kevin Padrick, Patty Whittington, Ewan Rose, Kevin D. Padrick, Oregon Attorney General, Judge Marco Hernandez, Oregon Civil Lawsuit, Summit 1031 Bankruptcy, US Bankruptcy Trustee.