Friday, February 5, 2010

P. Stephen Lamont - Friend or Foe of the Iviewit Shareholders?

Is P. Stephen Lamont working for or Against the Iviewit Shareholders and the best interest of the Iviewit Inventors?


Below is an excerpt from an SEC letter to be filed shortly regarding information regarding the fraudulent actions of P. Stephen Lamont in his continued representation of Iviewit, as CEO no less, at an address where no Iviewit company has ever been incorporated or listed with any agency.

P. Stephen Lamont was fired long ago and has no right to act in any capacity for Iviewit or Iviewit Shareholders.

P. Stephen Lamont also has been reported to the courts for his criminal activities in representing shareholders in my Federal RICO and Antitrust case when he is not a licensed attorney and never has passed the bar.

You will find other information below regarding the illegal activities of P. Stephen Lamont and he has been reported to State and Federal agencies regarding these crimes.

I advise anyone considering dealing with P. Stephen Lamont in any capacity to check with your legal counsel about the possible ramifications you may incur regarding any issues with Iviewit and Lamont. These latest assaults on my character etc. appear to be feeble attempts by a desperate man whose cover and misdeeds have been exposed.

P. Stephen Lamont also references filings with the US Second Circuit whereby his separate appeal has been dismissed but fails to mention that in my appeal he also was identified for illegally representing Iviewit Shareholders when he is not an attorney.


• August 15, 2001 Irell & Manella LLP Bills for Services for Warner Bros et al. and Sony Licensing Agreements @

It is imperative for the SEC to note that after the Signed Licensing and Service Agreement, Iviewit opened a California Office inside a Warner Bros. building, in order to take over encoding operations for their online content, and more. Iviewit began billing according to the Licensing and Service agreement. Please note the language in the Licensing and Service agreement pertaining to the Proprietary nature and Confidentiality of the Iviewit inventions.

Suddenly, after the agreements were signed and operations were underway, Wayne M. Smith ~ Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel at Warner Bros. began seeking a re-review of Proskauer Partner Kenneth Rubenstein’s (“Rubenstein”) prior patent opinions regarding the Iviewit inventions to Warner Bros. employees. Smith then claimed to Colter that he found problems while reviewing Rubenstein’s opinion with the patents on file at the US Patent Office[1].

At this point, allegedly, a coordinated conspiratorial effort between Smith, Rubenstein and others began to derail the already signed Iviewit agreements with Warner Bros. et al.

o Whereby former Acting CEO of Iviewit P. Stephen Lamont, ( a referral emanating from AOL’s Leonsis ) Smith and Rubenstein then worked to derail the Licensing and Service Agreement. Warner Bros. then further attempted to deny the existence of this BINDING CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION as further evidenced in letters exhibited herein, whereby the agreement is attempted to be wholly denied.

The amount owed in service fees since the signing of the contracts would be an enormous amount over the almost 10 years of use and where Warner Bros et al. have never notified Iviewit they were cancelling such contract, perhaps because they were denying its existence.

o The emails forward from this point in the timeline begin to attempt to hide from the fact that Licensing and Service Agreements were already in place while also hiding these facts and liabilities from Shareholders and Auditors. The alleged fraud may again have catastrophic effect on these highly traded stocks, reaching back to this point in time and possibly further back.

April 04, 2001 Letter from Colter to William J. "Bill" Raduchel (“Raduchel”) ~ Chief Technology Officer and Executive Vice President at AOL.

AOL’s Leonsis referred Raduchel to do further due diligence for an investment in the Iviewit companies, in addition to the Licensing and Encoding deal already signed.

• May 25, 2001 Letters to and from Douglas Chey (“Chey”), Senior Vice President of Technology for Sony Pictures Digital Entertainment and Divisional CIO, Motion Pictures and Television Productions of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Chey formerly with Warner Bros. was working with Iviewit at Sony ( also under Signed Agreements ) together with Warner to do a Five Studio Movie Download Project, Movielink, where the Iviewit inventions were to be the backbone enabling technologies to make digital download and streaming possible as a commercial endeavor.

Since that time, Warner Bros. and Sony have both done similar digital downloading projects, in violation of Signed Agreements with Iviewit.

The SEC should also begin FORMAL INVESTIGATION
of Sony’s involvement in these matters.

Similar calls to those described herein to Warner Bros. et al. for sound business discussions to attempt to alleviate shareholder liabilities have gone wholly ignored by Sony’s In House Counsel, Executives and Auditors. I will be filing a more formal complaint shortly with the SEC but this should not delay immediate investigation by the SEC, in order to preclude Massive Liabilities to Shareholders of Sony.

The SEC can take this Formal Complaint additionally

• December 20, 2001 ~ P. Stephen Lamont 's letter to Kenneth Rubenstein regarding Smith and Rubenstein and the refusal of Rubenstein to RE-OPINE to Smith due to what he claims is a “CONFLICT”, which led further to the breakdown of relations between Iviewit and Warner Bros et al. Lamont later affirmed to Shareholders in a written communication that Microsoft had planted him in the Iviewit companies.

Later P. Stephen Lamont changed that story to AOL and Leonsis’ niece had planted him in Iviewit through AOL Founder Leonsis’ best friend Chuck Brunelas (“Brunelas”). Brunelas recruited under contract Lamont to the Iviewit companies on behalf of Leonsis. Lamont’s revelations of being planted at the company which came after he was hired led to the termination of Lamont at that time[2].

December 20, 2001 P. Stephen Lamont Letters to Kenneth Rubenstein ~

Pages 455-462

o November 09, 2001 ~ Brunelas Employment Agreement

o Based on new information since that time, it is alleged that Rubenstein, Lamont, Leonsis and Smith operated together to sabotage Iviewit/Warner Bros. et al. relations and others, purposefully to breach the prior signed licensing agreements and avoid paying the royalties owed to the Iviewit companies, using the old “good guy / bad guy” routine.

The SEC should note here that Hall and I recently reported Lamont to Federal and State authorities for alleged collusion in the RICO activities claimed in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, including ongoing criminal activities[3].

Further, Lamont continues to represent himself and Iviewit Shareholders as the Iviewit CEO, when he is fully aware of his termination from employment and that he has no authorization from the Board of Directors, Management or Shareholders to represent their security interests in Iviewit companies, this securities fraud also should be subject for investigation by the SEC.

P. Stephen Lamont claims to be CEO of Iviewit Technologies, Inc. in multiple correspondences and Federal court papers with an address at 175 King Street. Armonk, N.Y. 10504 and whereby no Iviewit offices were ever opened or authorized at this address. The office is directly across the street from Defendant in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit IBM’s world headquarters.

o Additional Evidence for the SEC regarding P. Stephen Lamont is contained in a June 18, 2009 Letter to New York Attorney General Chief of Staff, Steven M. Cohen regarding fraudulent activities of Lamont @

o The SEC should note here that Lamont’s initial resume submitted by Iviewit contracted employment recruiter, Brunelas, is materially different and contradicts what Lamont himself recently claims regarding his past on the Iviewit Homepage, in multiple court filings and other letters to Iviewit shareholders.

• Original 2001 Resume Submitted to Iviewit on P. Stephen Lamont by Brunelas @

• 2001 Resume Claims the following:

Columbia University School of Law ~ J. D. in Commercial and Regulatory Law - May 1992

Columbia University Graduate School of Business ~ M.B.A. in Finance and Accounting - May 1981

State University of New York at Cortland ~ B.A. in Economics - June 1978

• 2009 Iviewit Homepage Statement written by P. Stephen Lamont claims:

“By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, former Acting CEO of Iviewit (counsel advised all Iviewit executives to resign their posts and work along side Iviewit rather than within Iviewit, as the former Board of Directors, Counsel and Accountants, disbanded without requisite notice to Shareholders in violation of law, thereby leaving massive liability and exposure) and a significant shareholder in Iviewit.

With more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics licensing executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law from Columbia University, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering” Source homepage.

• Whereby Lamont’s legal and other degrees claimed are wholly different and therefore false in one or both of his background accounts as they are materially different, again causation for further investigation of Lamont by the SEC and other investigators this letter has been copied or addressed to.

• Further, you will note that Lamont refers to himself as “former Acting CEO of Iviewit” and claims counsel advised him to resign any official role due to the potential for charges of fraud, and I advised Lamont to follow counsels’ advice and personally, I did not accept any official roles on counsels’ advice.

Yet, even in recent court documents and other illegally signed documents executed by Lamont to major Blue Chip companies, including Microsoft, Lamont now represents himself as CEO of Iviewit inapposite of counsels’ advice, at an address that is not registered to any company Lamont claims to be employed as CEO by.

August 05, 2009 Lamont Letter to Microsoft

• Lamont further now claims such executive role in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit, claiming he is CEO of Iviewit, when no Board has ever put him in that position and when he is fully cognizant that he has no authority legally to represent Iviewit Shareholders. Lamont even attempts to represent Iviewit Shareholders and Companies currently in Federal Court, while not having ever passed the bar to practice law and therefore precluded from representing others in court. Again, cause for further investigation of Lamont.

• February 09, 2009 Lamont Court Filing

The SEC should note here that while the document claims service on February 09, 2008, it appears executed February 09, 2009.

Whereby the SEC should also note that Lamont does not represent himself individually in the Lawsuit but acts on behalf of Iviewit Shareholders of which he has no authorization from Shareholders to act on their behalf and also is not a lawyer, making it ILLEGAL for him to act on others behalf in a legal capacity.

The District Court and Second Circuit Court notified of this ILLEGAL representation and asked by me to force amendment of the complaint, instead continue to allow the ILLEGAL representation of Lamont to continue. This ILLEGAL representation of Shareholders is also a serious criminal act.

• Finally, at the company Digital Factory that Lamont lists as one of his former employers, in his resume previously exhibited herein, one of the company employees later disclosed that Lamont had been in stock trouble for securities fraud with the board of that company, of course Lamont’s resume failed to disclose this material fact.

• December 31, 2001 – Letter from Brunelas to Greg B. Thagard (“Thagard”) ~ Vice President Advanced Technology Technical Operations at Warner Bros. The letter is regarding Thagard’s acceptance of an Iviewit Advisory Board Position. Later both Thagard and Colter would receive Iviewit Stock options for their Board roles with approval of Warner Bros. and Sony executives.


• January 07, 2002 ~ Letters by Lamont regarding his meeting with Rubenstein regarding Warner Bros et al. Rubenstein was presented the exhibited document in draft form at his deposition, where he read it and then dodged questions regarding why his name is referenced in relation to opinions he gave to Warner Bros. et al. after denying he knew anything about Iviewit or the patents.

The letter wholly contradicts his prior denial of knowing of the Iviewit inventions or Eliot Bernstein, contradicting his sworn deposition statements and sworn letters to Judge Jorge Labarga constituting multiple instances of perjury and more.

January 07, 2002 and more P. Lamont letters to Kenneth Rubenstein

Pages 19-23

o November 20, 2002 Kenneth Rubenstein Deposition and Deposition Exhibits

Pages 1-100, the exhibits attached to the deposition show Kenneth Rubenstein’s denials.

• January 14, 2002 Warner Bros. employee Colter’s internal Warner Bros. document containing an ADMISSION OF USE OF IVIEWIT PROPRIETARY PROCESSES AND VIOLATION OF NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS by many Warner Bros. et al. employees. The letter also provides affirmation that Rubenstein ( MPEGLA LLC Patent Counsel, former Iviewit Proskauer Rose Patent Counsel and Warner Bros. counsel ) opined favorably to Warner Bros. The document again directly refutes Rubenstein’s statements in deposition and written communications to the Labarga court that he did not opine or even know of the Iviewit inventions.


• February 17, 2002 – Eliot Bernstein letter to Brunelas Regarding Smith’s sudden request to have Rubenstein of Proskauer speak to him to re-opine on his former statements, already exhibited herein, regarding the efficacy and novelty of the patents.

Kenneth Rubenstein was acting Patent Counsel to Iviewit as indicated in the exhibited Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer billed to author and distribute to Iviewit potential investors when he opined to Warner Bros.

The links below provide information on Kenneth Rubenstein’s position as an Iviewit Board member and Iviewit Patent Counsel despite his statements to the contrary.

At the time Smith requested to speak with Kenneth Rubenstein, Proskauer Rose and Kenneth Rubenstein already were terminated by Iviewit and investigations were already underway regarding the patent thefts and more.

o February 17, 2002 Letter from Eliot Bernstein to Brunelas.

o January 2001 Wachovia Private Placement Memorandum, whereby the SEC should note here that Kenneth Rubenstein is listed both as Iviewit Patent Counsel and an Iviewit Advisory Board member.

Page 4 – “Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio - Mr. Rubenstein is the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool.

Page 16 - “Strong and Experienced Board of Directors and Advisory Board.” iviewit's Board of Directors and Advisors consist of several well-established individuals from the technology, entertainment, and financial community.

Directors have extensive backgrounds with top-tier firms such as Goldman Sachs, Kidder Peabody, and McKinsey & Co. Crossbow Ventures has provided $3.0 million in funding and sits on the Board.

Technology and entertainment guidance comes from a partner at Armstrong Hirsch Jackoway & Wertheimer and from Kenneth Rubenstein, the head of the MPEG-2 patent pool.

Additionally on Page 16 - “The Company has retained Foley & Lardner to shepherd its patent development and procurement. In addition, the Company has retained Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose, LLP to oversee its entire patent portfolio. The Company's strategy is to establish market precedence through licensing of trade secrets and know-how.


Kenneth Rubenstein Partner, Proskauer Rose LLP. Mr. Rubenstein is a partner at Proskauer Rose LLP law firm and is the patent attorney for iviewit. He is a registered patent attorney before the US. Patent & Trademark Office.

Mr. Rubenstein counsels his clients with respect to the validity and infringement of competitors' patents, as well as prosecutes patent applications. For the past several years he has worked on the formation of a patent pool, for MPEG-2 technology, involving large consumer electronics and entertainment companies.

He is also a former member of the legal staff at Bell Laboratories. Mr. Rubenstein received his law degree, cum laude, from New York Law School and his Ph.D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he also graduated with a B.S. Degree.

The SEC should note here that Rubenstein’s attempt to claim he never heard of Iviewit, including at his deposition, allegedly is due to the massive conflicts of interest that Rubenstein had.

If Kenneth Rubenstein were patent counsel to Iviewit and simultaneously counsel to Warner Bros. et al. when he originally opined to Colter, without conflict waivers or disclosure, this obviously would have violated attorney conduct codes and law.

Additionally, Kenneth Rubenstein is conflicted with the patent pooling scheme and artifice to fraud inventors he has created, MPEGLA LLC, where again he acted as counsel and founder of MPEGLA LLC while also patent counsel to Iviewit.

The conflict here is again obvious where the Iviewit technologies were the single greatest threat to his pools as Iviewit has the dominant technology, which without, the MPEG license would be worthless.

The SEC should note that Rubenstein initially misrepresented himself and Joao as Proskauer Partners to Iviewit, when prior to learning of my inventions they were both with Meltzer.

Kenneth Rubenstein is counsel and sole patent evaluator for MPEGLA LLC now one of the largest infringers of the Iviewit technologies, licensing Warner Bros et al.

Proskauer, after learning of my technologies value, estimated at a trillion dollars to “priceless” by leading engineers at Real 3D, Inc. and without a patent department at the time in 1998, then rushed to acquire Rubenstein and his Meltzer patent group and the MPEGLA LLC pools.

When the acquisition was complete, Proskauer, my former patent counsel, directly began inuring benefits from the stolen technologies via their new client MPEGLA LLC in their new Intellectual Property department created after learning of my inventions.

MPEGLA has now tied and bundled my inventions to their pools licensing schemes, converting the royalties from the technologies from Iviewit and through other anticompetitive tactics have kept Iviewit from market in classic RICO and Antitrust violations, including violations of Sherman and Clayton, as further defined in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit exhibited already herein.

The SEC should note here that Warner Bros. et al. and many of those involved directly in these matters are also involved in DVD patent pooling schemes, including but not limited to, DVD6C Patent Pool[4].

Whereby, similar to MPEGLA LLC’s illegal use of my technologies, DVD6C has similarly tied and bundled my technologies to their pools licenses, excluding me from royalties and then inuring royalties from others from my technologies directly from their membership in the pool.

o The SEC should note that the only Meltzer Intellectual Property attorney not to transfer to Proskauer at the time of acquisition was a one Raymond Joao, who initially with Rubenstein was represented as a Proskauer partner and who took initial patent disclosures with Rubenstein.

In 1999-2000 it was learned that Raymond Joao was putting patents into his own name while sabotaging the Iviewit patents. Upon leaving Iviewit, Joao claimed publically that he had 90+ patents in his name and then went to work for Marc S. Dreier, recently prosecuted and convicted by the SEC for an alleged Ponzi scheme, as further evidenced later herein.

February 08, 2002 – Lamont letter to John D. Calkins (“Calkins”) ~ Senior Vice President New Media Business Development of Warner Bros., regarding stock issued to Warner Bros. employees Colter and Thagard for Advisory Board roles they accepted and also regarding their about face and breach of contracts.

• February 20, 2002 – Calkins Letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.

The SEC should note that opposite of Warner Bros. claim in the letter that Iviewit is creating a false record, it is instead Warner Bros. that attempts to create a false and misleading record of fact in the letter.


• February 27, 2002 – Lamont to Calkins about Warner Bros. Breach of Contracts, the SEC should note that while Lamont relies on the NDA, the February 15, 2001 SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, illustrated above, also has strong language about IP rights concerning the Iviewit technologies that also are violated.

Also, take note, that at this time in 2002, Warner Bros. et al. knew of the breaches and formally was notified by Iviewit at that time of such breaches and therefore they should have begun accounting for the IP Liabilities at this time, if not earlier according to FASB accounting rules.


• March 05, 2002 – Smith letter to Lamont denying IP infringement and contract violations in utter denial of the facts and evidence, including the Signed License and Service Agreement, Signed NDA’s, letters from Warner Bros. employees citing violations of the NDA’s and more, already presented herein.


• November 20, 2002 - April 15, 2002 Letter by Lamont to Rubenstein Regarding Conversations with Warner Bros et al. presented to Rubenstein at his November 20, 2002 Deposition as already discussed herein.


pages 3-9

Please note that the correspondence exhibited above refers to a notification issued to Warner Bros. at that time, which provided Warner Bros. et al. further notice at that time that Cease and Desist letters and threatened litigation would be forthcoming regarding the technology infringements.

Warner Bros. et al. already was given notice of Breach of Contracts regarding the Intellectual Properties in prior communiqu├ęs exhibited and these letters certainly cite specific liabilities Warner was aware of going forward.

Liabilities exist for Warner Bros et al. for their involvement in the alleged criminal RICO activities initially discovered from information partially uncovered by Warner Bros. et al. in 2001, as they were on the verge of pouring in $25 Million Dollars in investment capital to my companies.

When doing their due diligence on a $12 Million Dollar Private Placement with Wachovia Securities, corporate and intellectual property frauds were uncovered, including discoveries by Smith regarding the filed patents and Calkins regarding corporate fraud.

At that time, Warner Bros et al. employees and personnel became aware of fraud relating to both the patents filed with the US Patent Office and additional corporate fraud, additional to what Andersen had found on or about that time and this information was relayed to Iviewit by Colter on behalf of both Smith and Calkins.

Colter relayed that Warner Bros. et al. uncovered fraud, including fraudulent statements made by Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner, former Iviewit counsel, regarding statements made in the Wachovia Private Placement.

A Private Placement Memorandum that Proskauer circulated to potential Iviewit investors including Warner Bros. et al. These Securities Frauds contained in the Private Placement are also cause for further SEC investigation.

Per Colter, Warner Bros. et al. and Smith uncovered Intellectual Property Frauds involving fraudulent oaths to the US Patent Office and Worldwide Patent Authorities, which has in part led to suspension of my Intellectual Properties by the US Patent Commissioner pending investigations by the US Patent Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

This series of events led to further uncovering Patent Fraud by my former counsel Proskauer Rose, Foley and Larder and Meltzer and others that are subject to several state, federal and international ongoing investigations and legal actions.

Investigations now include one by Harry I. Moatz (“Moatz”), Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office – Office of Enrollment and Discipline (“OED”), charged with oversight of the Federal Patent Bar and patent attorney criminal issues.

Moatz confirmed that W. Palm Beach FBI Special Agent, Stephen Lucchesi had joined his investigation of FRAUD ON THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE.

Moatz also directed me to file claims of Fraud on the USPTO with the Commissioner of the US Patent Office which resulted in the exhibited herein patent suspensions.

Moatz assembled a team of Patent Office Officials to aid me in getting the Intellectual Properties ready for suspension while investigations proceeded, as he removed all prior counsel from access to the IP.

Per Colter, Calkin’s had found fraud involving a fraudulent billing lawsuit against the Iviewit companies by their counsel Proskauer Rose.

Prior to Calkin’s information Iviewit corporate officers, directors and management did not know about such lawsuit, except those now charged with the RICO crimes and therefore it was not disclosed by Proskauer Rose LLP or Iviewit Accountants to Wachovia Securities for their due diligence and therefore not reflected in the Private Placement.

It was later learned that the companies sued by Proskauer Rose were companies fraudulently set up by former counsel Proskauer Rose LLP and had Stolen Intellectual Properties in them, this was learned from information discovered directly from the US Patent Office OED Investigations.

Whereby, Arthur Andersen on or about this time, while auditing the Iviewit companies for the largest investor Crossbow Ventures of West Palm Beach Florida, whose investment funds were two-thirds SBA SBIC funds found identical and similarly named companies to the Iviewit companies.

The Fraud involving the stolen Small Business Administration Funds is under ongoing investigation with the SBA Inspector General’s office and others.

Per Colter, Smith discovered Fraud involving Kenneth Rubenstein, a Proskauer Rose law firm partner and sole patent evaluator for one of the largest infringers and criminal suspects in my Federal RICO and Antitrust Lawsuit.

Kenneth Rubenstein is under investigation with other attorneys by Moatz and was also ordered for investigation by unanimous consent of five justices of the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department for Conflicts and the Appearance of Impropriety for violating public offices to block complaints I filed against him.

Where later, after discovery of the Intellectual Property fraudulent filings, it was learned that Smith, IP counsel for Warner Bros. was working with Kenneth Rubenstein ( Iviewit Patent Counsel, MPEGLA Counsel and Warner Bros. Counsel ) and that their relationship somehow now precluded Kenneth Rubenstein from re-opining on his prior opinion of the patents for Warner Bros. employees as already evidenced herein.

Whereby Warner Bros. then breached their contracts and began illegally using and licensing the technologies to others in violation of those binding signed agreements.

The MPEGLA LLC patent pooling scheme created and overseen by Counsel Rubenstein is merely an artifice to defraud inventors and has illegally precluded me from market in classic antitrust activities, including death threats and a car bomb.

Whereby the DVD Patent Pooling Schemes that Warner Bros. is directly involved in have also used the technologies in violation of signed contracts and agreements, admittedly, yet since that time they too have excluded Iviewit from market, again in classic antitrust activities and not only failed to pay Iviewit royalties but have failed to account for the 10 year Massive Liabilities.

The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between these prior Iviewit and Warner Bros et al., communications and contracts and the current contact to notify them again of liabilities resulting from the IP infringement and the newer Lawsuit liabilities, that during the gap I was actively pursuing my rights.

I have given similar information to several investigators and courts over the several years in between communications regarding Warner Bros. et al. involvement in the Iviewit allegations in my Federal RICO Lawsuit.

During the time, I was also forced to flee my home several times for my family’s safety, including from death threats from Mr. Brian Utley on behalf of the law firms Proskauer Rose and Foley & Lardner and then from actual Attempted Murder of my family. Attempted Murder through a Car Bombing of my family minivan in Del Ray Beach, FL., images of the Car Bombing can be found on the [5] homepage.

Eliot Bernstein... Information to be found at

More Details on the Iviewit Case at www.Iviewit.TV