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. 

What is Going on at New York's Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee ?

What is the Duty of the Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District ?

What were the Duties and Responsibilities of the Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York Rita Adler ? ( That Coming Soon )

And did Rita Adler, Ex- Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County follow these Laws, Rules, Standards of Ethics ? I think Not.

Did Did Rita Adler obey the Laws of the State of New York? Should Rita Adler be Held accountable for the lives she has affecting adversely?

Should Rita Adler Be Dis-Barred ? Where is Rita Adler now and whose life is her total lack of Ethics affecting Now? All that and more Coming Soon to RitaAdler.com ....

Is Robert A. Green Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York , Continuing the Legacy Of Corruption and Life Ruining Behavior that Rita Adler Left Behind?

Or is Robert A. Green cleaning up "Dirty" "Business as Usual" at the Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee ?

The Facts are there, the Truth Speaks for Itself.

It all comes down to a matte of if Robert A. Green Tenth Judicial District Grievance Committee for Suffolk County and Nassau County, New York ... if Robert A. Green will read the facts, and uphold the laws of the United States of American and protect the Taxpaying Voters of New York or ... if Robert A. Green will protect the Corporate Greed, Money Machine and Wall of Corruption in New York that Rita Adler Boldly protected for so many years... and seemingly accountable to No One.. Oh of course but to Me and NOW that you Know the Facts.. Rita Adler - Robert A. Green - Leslie B. Anderson are accountable to ALL OF YOU.

Rita Adler, Ex- Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County, Retired or Not is Still Liable for the Lives she has ruined, for her unEthical and Illegal behavior while Rita Adler, was Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County ... and I intend to Expose ever single one .. over her 4.5 year tenure..

Coming Soon Defamation Lawsuit(S) and Criminal Complaint(S) against Rita Adler personally and against Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York.

"Retirement" Does not mean "Immunity".

Someone in the position of Chief Attorney Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District, Suffolk County - Nassau County, such as Rita Adler was, that has the power to take away licenses to do business, has the power to protect hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate crime and the power to change peoples lives entirely... well this SHOULD never have any kind of "Immunity".

Rita Adler should be held accountable for what she has done and so should the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York.

Coming Soon What Judge, Laws, Ethics, Oversight is Responsible for the Behavior, Ethics, and Activities of the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York ? And are they paying any attention at all ? Or do they even know what is going on at the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York. Well if they don't know they soon will.

Also Coming soon what Exactly are the Duties, Responsibilities and Standard of Ethics that apply to Leslie B. Anderson - Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York ? What Liability does Leslie B. Anderson have in the Peter Sivere Case, the George Demos Issue or the Life and Economic Condition of New York Attorney Ruth Pollack?

Has the Grievance Committee for the Tenth Judicial District for Suffolk County - Nassau County - in the State of New York Ruined Your Life, Not Protected your Rights, Discriminated against you, Committed Fraud, aided and abetted corruption that you know of? Send your tip to me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger, Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Also Check Out the Peter Sivere Story at PeterSivere.com - $335 Million Dollars in JP Morgan Cover Ups, protecting Corrupt SEC investigator George Demos - what did Rita Adler and have to gain in protecting a Lie and not Defending the Whistleblower telling the Truth Peter Sivere Should have been Protected by National Whistle Blower Laws and the SEC Whistle Blower program and Peter Sivere was not. Why did Rita Adler Protect George Demos ? Why did Leslie B. Anderson protect George Demos ?

What Did "Chris Fox's" father in law really turn up on George Demos ? As he apparently hired New York Criminal Defense Attorney David Schwartz to investigate "look into" George Demos? What did they find, what was a blind eye turned on ?

Click Here for a Bit more on That One.

Also Check out the Odd story of a New York Attorney with her licensed suspended and no real explanation it seems, no real reason... I Believe it was to cover up millions hidden by the Valley Stream No. 24 and Edward Fale .. and I intend to Prove it Coming Soon to EdwardFale.com - Every Dollar, every dirty .. I want to KNOW.. eMail me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Edward Fale is part of some cover up that has changed the life of one Honest New York Attorney, and ya know thats gotta be rare.. (Smile) anyway Edward Fale seems to be a part of the Problem and not the solution and has made the life of Kevin Chesney and Attorney Ruth Pollack Collateral Damage in whatever it is Edward Fale is hiding and for Whom.... so It is time I get to the bottom of what Edward Fale is REALLY up To. ( oh and just how is Rita Adler and Leslie B. Anderson connected to Edward Fale .. Really ? )

Click Here for More on the Ruth Pollack Story.

Also Coming Soon Just What is James Pelzer 's part in All this?

Email me Your Story

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

the "LIE will NOT become the TRUTH on My Watch"

P.S - How's My "A Game" so Far ?
Pumpkin ?

What is the Real Story Behind Valley Stream No. 24, Kevin Chesney and NY Attorney Ruth Pollack ?

Is there any Government Oversight to the Massive Corruption in New York ?

What is Really Going on at the Valley Stream No. 24 ? It is time to find out what "Lies Beneath" the Secret Veil of Corruption at Valley Stream No. 24 - in New York State.

News Article Archive

"By the End of 2007 - 2008 Valley Stream No. 24 had amassed $3.09 Million in Excess Reserves, more then 3 Times the Legal Amount. Auditors found that the district's budgeted expenses consistently exceeded amounts needed, concluding that this was done deliberately"

Click Here for Source of Above Quote and Full Article

So was anyone ever held liable? was the TRUTH ever told?

Big Money - Big Consequences for

the Truth Told about that Money.

Demand ALL Accounting of Valley Stream No. 24 - This is Your Money, What is really going on at Valley Stream No. 24 ? Who gets work contracts, what conflicts of interest exist - Who Is Protecting whom and why ?

Under Freedom of Information, Can't you Request what this Money is spent on, where it comes from and why. It seems to me that if the Millions of Dollars at Valley Stream No. 24 is used to help protect the Wall of Corruption in New York and that if the New York Grievance Committee, New York Bar, Second Department and other New York and Federal Agencies are used to SHUT UP an attorney on a Case that seems to me to simply be about ... some guy getting hurt at work..

Who Got Contracts? Who got Paid and what for.. ??
You have a Right to Know.

What Politicians or Public Officials are paid off, if any to protect this BIG money going through the hands of Valley Stream No. 24 ?

Who Would Kill to cover this Fraud Up? Who would Do just about anything to keep this kind of money, where it came from.. where it is going .. as a "Secret" ?

What if an Honest New York Attorney stumbled on the Truth or took on a Case in which "Discovery" would Turn up the Truth on the ... Valley Stream No. 24 - How About they some how convince the New York Bar, and a Corrupt New York Grievance Committee to simply Suspend the Attorney, take her Life as she knows it and Call it a Day. That oughta shut her up right? Well unless she has any morals or a backbone !!

Did they think If she is Suspended or perhaps even Dis-barred... well then surely no one will believe her right? And Surely if there is No "Discover" in this case, well then we can keep out dirty little ... Secret, Right?

Time to Expose the Secrets of

Valley Stream No. 24

Got a Tip on all that Money Valley Stream No. 24 ?
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

What is the Real Reason for the Absurd Suspension of New York Attorney, Ruth Pollack?

I mean come on she is certainly not a "George Demos", covering a $335 Million Dollar JP Morgan Secret.. She seems to be an Independent Attorney, simply doing her thing... so what in the World did she stumble on that makes these powerful people want to Discredit Her?

Well I will Be Exploring that Question in Great Detail On My Whistle Blower Media Blog Network, Stay Tuned ...

Also Coming Soon EdwardFale.com - to Expose Every Dollar, Every Dirty Deal withing the Valley Stream No. 24 ~ What is it that is so Secret, So Important that the New York Wall of Corruption would be recruited to help cover it up ?

The Collateral Damage in the Valley Stream No. 24 Scandal is many - particularly of interest to me is the Career and Quality of Life of One BOLD New York Whistleblower Attorney Ruth Pollack. And the Quality of Life of Kevin Chesney, he client in the Valley Stream No. 24 Scandal.

Coming Soon the Whole story of what made Ruth M. Pollack New York Attorney andKevinChesney Collateral Damage in a wall of corruption war in New York politics and high finance in which they had NOTHING to do with.

* I will Explore the Question of why so many Travel Expenses with Valley Stream No. 24 . What was Edward Fale, Valley Stream No. 24 Superintendent Really Up To.

* I will discuss Minerva & D'Agostino Law firm and what they may have to Hide.

* The Truth about the Hiring of Therapists without a Criminal Background Check. Who were they, who were they related or connected to... Who is Metro Therapy Inc. and what did they real gain or have to hide.. - Coming Soon..

* I will Explore the "Books" or the "cooking of the books"

* I will Expose all Legal Fees and Professional Services EVERY used... how much they cost and why that person or company was chosen..

* Just who is Anthony Iadevaio (is he a police officer?) and what are the Conflicts of Interest, Money Paid..

* Why was "Computer Access Rights" purged with an Incoming State Audit?

What Makes Valley Stream No. 24 and their Den of Secrets and Financial Cover Ups so important that the New York Corruption Mill is fighting to keep an Honest New York Attorney from simply going about her life and her law practice?

Well I Intend to Find Out ..

These Questions.. and Many more To be Explored Soon.. Check for EdwardFale.com in the near future, or simply google anything on this page and you will find what I am Yapping about it.

Got a Tip

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Click Here for More to the Story

Montana Highway Patrol Corruption - Corrupt Protective Orders - Lee Newspaper Corruption - Steve Bullock Montana Attorney General Does NOTHING.

" Montana Justice System in Crisis

Being ranked last in the nation for justice is not well known in the State of Montana. Congressmen, Governors, Attorney General, and the FBI feel the problem can persist.

Its easier with a staff member in the White House since 2009 helping to cover up the problems....our own Jim Messina.

What happens when "built in protections" in the justice system become more mechanism forabusing rights of Americans who live in Montana?

When local judges know the prosecutors, and go their way on bail (8th Amendment), probable cause (14th Amendment), and other determinations (search and seizure; 4th Amendment) ordinary Americans in Montana are not getting their rights upheld.

That might be the reason we lost a Montana Highway Patrolman in three forks this week. Whilethe Associated Press (AP) wishes the nation to believe this 56 year old dog trainer was "bitter" from a former snake bite complication, the bitterness is the loss of liberty, the loss of rights, and the loss of control normal people have in their lives due to our out of control criminal justice system in Montana.

In Montana it is big business to place orders of protection, with supposed large federal grants that never seem to make it to the bottom line of municipal budgets.

Required paperwork seems to magically appear, and Lee Newspapers are willing to fill in the blanks for a price. We have no justice, or truth.

When an employee of the Attorney General office threatens a person's livelihood and house for questioning a county prosecutor, something is wrong in Montana.

That employee is now in charge of the Highway Patrol, and is also Attorney General, Steve Bullock (a Columbia Law graduate).

The MHP did not give test scores in 2008 to applicants "who did not make it" and had two uniformed officers put their hands on their holstered sidearms and asked the "unsuccessful" candidates to leave.

With letters, websites, blogs, and a documentary on justice, the Montana state and federal officials now need to understand that they were given information about the justice system prior to this officers ultimate sacrifice.

Denial is the first step, what is the next?"

Source of Post
http://wethepeoplemt.blogspot.com/2010/12/montana-justice-system-in-crisis.html

Posted by
Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Got a Tip on Montana Highway Patrol Corruption, Cover Ups or ???

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

The LIE will NEVER

Stand as the Truth
On My Watch !!

More on Massive Corruption, Cover Ups and Illegal Activity in Montana by the Very Judicial System Paid to Protect Montana Citizens.

www.MontanaCorruption.com
Montana Corruption Rampant ~ Demand Transparency and Accountability.

www.HamiltonMontanaNews.net
Hamilton Montana News of Cover Ups, Corruption,
Pay Offs, Corrupt Judges in Ravalli County Montana

www.EurekaMontanaNews.com
Lincoln County Montana Corruption Exposed

www.MontanaMoxy.com
Montana News for the People by the People

www.RobinClute.com

Exposing Corrupt Hamilton Montana Justice of the Peace Robin Clute

www.GeorgeCorn.com
Exposing Corruption in the Ravalli County Montana

County Attorney Office. ~ Though Corrupt Ravalli County
Attorney George Corn was voted out this blog will keep on

eye on what the Corrupt George Corn Does next and expose

past corruption as well as keep a future watch over

the Ravalli County Montana County Attorney Office.

Got a Story on a Corrupt Montana Justice of the Peace, Corrupt Montana Law Enforcement, Illegal Montana Protective Order, Set Ups to Silence Truth Tellers, Corrupt District Court Judges in the State of Montana, Stories of Asking the FBI - the Montana ACLU - Commissioners - Police for HELP and Being Ignored as they Protect the Criminals over the Victims Rights?

Email your Story to Me RIGHT NOW and Get Heard...

Crystal Cox Montana Investigative Blogger
"Montana Media"

WhistleBlower Media...
Crystal@CrystalCox.com

SJ Berwin says No To merging with Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose

SJ Berwin JUST got out of a 13 trillion dollar liability. SJ Berwin has halted talks of nonsense with merging with Corrupt Law Firm Proskauer Rose LLP.

Good for SJ Berwin as Proskauer Rose Law Firm is named in an 13 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit over Proskauer Rose Law Firm stealing the Iviewit Technology and making a Corrupt Deal with MPEG LA to rake in Billions every year from the Iveiwit Technology. Which is Now used by .. WELL all of Us everday with anything to do with video ... anything..

Proskauer Rose Law Firm is also named in an SEC Complaint and will one day NOT be protected by Andrew Cuomo and the Corrupt New York Courts and Proskauer Rose will pay Billions on Top of Billions for the 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft of the iViewit Technology.

Todays GOOD News for SJ Berwin

"Proskauer and English Firm End Their Merger Discussions

Nate Raymond

New York Law Journal

November 15, 2010

Proskauer Rose and SJ Berwin said Friday they had decided against merging, putting to an end months of speculation about a possible trans-Atlantic tie-up between the two law firms.

The firms in a joint statement said they decided to end merger talks, which had become public in May. New York-based Proskauer and London-based SJ Berwin said "we recognized that the timetable necessary to reach the agreements that would ensure the successful integration of our firms is not workable at this time."

"Our discussions began on the basis of a longstanding and profound mutual respect founded on outstanding lawyering ability, "(INSERT VOMIT HERE)" a commitment to client service, and synergistic practice capabilities," the firms said in their statement. "Our discussions end with the same profound respect, and with the greatest admiration for all the partners we have met during the course of the process."

A spokesperson for Proskauer said the firm would have no further comment. Rob Day, the managing partner of SJ Berwin, did not return calls or answer an e-mail seeking comment. But he told Legal Week, a London-based legal publication, that to seal a deal would have taken "several more months" and "that would have meant too much uncertainty for both partnerships."

Proskauer's talks with SJ Berwin came at a time of renewed interest among law firms in international tie-ups. Squire, Sanders & Dempsey and British firm Hammonds agreed last week to merge, a little more than a month afterSonnenschein Nath & Rosenthals combined with UK-based Denton Wilde Sapte to become SNR Denton. Hogan & Hartson completed its merger with London's Lovells in May and is now known as Hogan Lovells.

Proskauer emerged as a potential partner for SJ Berwin in May after talks between the British firm and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe ended. The Proskauer/SJ Berwin efforts may have been hampered by public knowledge of the negotiations, as leaks of the merger talks were reported on frequently, mostly in the British legal press.

"These things are probably easier done where they're negotiated privately," said Ward Bower, a consultant at Altman Weil Inc. who was not involved in the merger talks.

For the 663-lawyer Proskauer, a merger with SJ Berwin would have immediately jump-started its efforts to expand in London and abroad. SJ Berwin has about 165 partners and more than 400 other lawyers in 12 offices in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

SJ Berwin began the search for a merger partner following financial declines. The firm, known for its work in real estate and private equity, saw profits per partner drop 49 percent to £410,000 ($661,475) in its 2008-09 fiscal year, which ends in April. Revenue during that period meanwhile fell 14 percent to £184 million ($296 million).

SJ Berwin's revenue fell another 7 percent in its most recent fiscal year, with the books closing on April 30 with £171 million ($276 million) in revenue. Its profits per partner meanwhile improved to £447,000 ($721,440), up 9 percent.

The London firm's finances have shown more improvement since then. Revenue for the first half of the fiscal year was up 9 percent to £87 million ($140 million), the firm announced separately on Friday, while its profits were up 34 percent, the firm said.

"This is a strong performance which marks a significant step in our financial recovery," Mr. Day said in a statement. "We expect to maintain growth in revenue and profit in the second half of this financial year."

Still, a profitability gap would have existed with Proskauer, the stronger of the two firms financially. The New York firm reported $643 million in revenue for 2009, up 1.5 percent. Profits per partner at Proskauer climbed 6.6 percent to $1.45 million.

Mr. Day acknowledged to Legal Week on Friday that disparities in profitability "no doubt makes it more difficult" to do a merger. But he added that "there are various ways of dealing with and getting around that issue."

Mr. Bower in an interview suggested the two could have organized as a Swiss verein, an increasingly popular legal structure for cross-border mergers that creates an association of member law firms under the one umbrella but each firm has separate partnerships and profit pools.

SJ Berwin had also experienced partner departures while merger talks dragged on. A four-partner real estate team, including practice group head Jon Vivian, left for UK-based Irwin Mitchell in September. Another real estate partner, Michael Metlis, this month left for London's Berwin Leighton Paisner. Niamh Grogan, a partner in SJ Berwin's competition practice, also left this month, joining Lloyds Banking Group.

In the midst of merger discussions, both firms also went through leadership changes. Proskauer partners in October elected Joseph M. Leccese to succeedAllen I. Fagin as the chairman in January. SJ Berwin, also last month, chose a new managing partner, Mr. Day, after Ralph Cohen in August said he would step down after more than eight years as the firm's head.

Proskauer and SJ Berwin in their statement said they were halting merger talks "with considerable regret." The firms said that they "look forward to continued cooperation between our firms for the benefit of our clients." A spokesman for SJ Berwin said that would include a non-exclusive referral agreement.

@|Nate Raymond can be reached at nraymond@alm.com. "

http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202474809714&Proskauer_SJ_Berwin_Call_Off_Merger_Talks&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

posted Here by

Crystal L. Cox

Investigative Blogger

Crystal@CrystalCox.com

got a Story on the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?
eMail me Today.. and Get Heard ...