Friday, February 5, 2010

This one is as of Sept. 09 P. Stephen Lamont acting as if he is still CEO of the Iviewit Company. Who Really has the RIGHT to act on Behalf of Iviewit

"CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention

CEO Lamont Demands Federal Intervention Category: Web, HTML, Tech


P. Stephen Lamont
Chief Executive Officer
Direct Dial: 914-217-0038

By Overnight Mail (o), Facsimile (f) and Certified Delivery (c)

September 23, 2009

The Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr. (o) The Hon. Preet Bharara (c)
Attorney General of the United States United States Attorney for
Office of the Attorney General District of New York
United States Department of Justice United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. One St. Andrews Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 New York, New York 10007

Hon. William M. Welch II (c) The Hon. John L. Sampson (f)
Chief, Public Integrity Unit Chairman, New York State Senate
United States Department of Justice Judiciary Committee
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W 409 Legislative Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Albany, NY 12247

RE: Request for Federal Intervention into Allegations of Corruption and Appointment of Federal Monitor.


By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, affiliates, and related parties (“Iviewit”), and pursuant to my fiduciary duties, I respectfully request your offices to: (i) attend the New York State Senate’s Standing Committee on the Judiciary’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing concerning The Appellate Division First Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“1st DDC”), the grievance committees of the various Judicial Districts (collectively, the “DDC’s”), and the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct (“CJC”), where you will hear testimony related to the commission of Federal crimes by and between and the 1st DDC, the DCC’s, the CJC and aggrieved citizens of the State of New York; (ii) once you have digested such testimony, and by the body(ies) of appropriate jurisdiction, the eventual issuance of a temporary injunction and a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of New York from further administration of the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC and the insertion of a Federal monitor to administer such agencies in lieu of State administration; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate such allegations of the commission of Federal crimes and the eventual prosecution of same.

As a case in point, the following describes the experiences of Iviewit with the aforementioned New York State agencies:

I. Iviewit Technology

The series of events proximate to the instant circumstances herein surrounds the sabotage of the multimedia inventions of Iviewit and the further alleged cover-up of that patent sabotage by the many attorneys, public officers, and members of the judiciary within and outside of the State of New York.

To begin, I would like to make it clear that Iviewit is not referring to some rudimentary software that will be rendered obsolete as newer versions emerge, but that the Iviewit video scaling and image overlay systems (“IP”) are THE backbone, enabling technologies for the encoding and transmission of video and images across all networks and viewable on all display devices, an elegant upstream solution (towards the content creator) of reconfiguring video frames to unlock bandwidth, processing, and storage constraints presently in use by cable MSO’s, satellite MSO’s, telco MSO’s, and terrestrial networks, among a host of others. On the imaging side, presently in use by all those hardware manufacturers of image and/or video capture devices and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Mars Rover images), Iviewit stakes the claim as the inventors of digital zoom.


1st DDC

In or about February 2003, and in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to attorney misconduct complaints against Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), Proskauer, Raymond A. Joao, Meltzer Lippe Goldstein Wolf & Schlissel LLP (“MLG”) filed with the 1st DDC, that were mired in undisclosed conflicts, improprieties, and violations of public offices of the 1st DDC from the outset. The attorney discipline response of Rubenstein was authored by Steven C. Krane of Proskauer who, upon information and belief, held positions at the 1st DDC and other disciplinary agencies at the time of the response making his representation a conflict of interest and violation of public offices.

In or about June 2003, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Steven C. Krane (“Krane”) for the above referenced conflicts and improprieties in the response for Rubenstein that imparted same on the now merged Joao complaint.

In or about June 2004, and in my capacity of Chief Executive Officer of Iviewit, I was a party to a complaint against Thomas J. Cahill, Chief Counsel of the 1st DDC, filed with the 1st DDC, Special Inquiry #2004.1122, as a result of Cahill’s knowing and willful false information supplied to Iviewit in an effort to protect Krane, that had since been stalled under the direction of persons unknown, and sat incommunicado in the offices of Special Counsel, Martin R. Gold, for investigation.

In or about June 2004, I was an individual movant in a Motion to the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division First Department (“First Department Court”), inter alia, to begin immediate investigation of complaints against the above referenced attorneys and counselors-at-law. Subsequently, the First Department Court granted the Motion and in an unpublished order it was determined to move the complaints of Rubenstein, Proskauer, Krane, MLG, and Joao to the Appellate Division Second Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee (“2nd DDC”) as a result of conflicts and the appearance of impropriety. After thorough review of the subject matter, the First Department Court ordered the immediate investigation of the complaints against each attorney involved – Rubenstein M2820, Joao M3212, and Krane M3198, while the First Department Court ordered the Cahill complaint for a Special Inquiry #2004.1122 by Gold.

2nd DDC

On or about October 2004, the 2nd DDC summarily dismissed the complaints against Rubenstein, Proskauer, MLG, Joao and Krane, failing to conduct the First Department Court’s ordered investigation. In a discussion with Diana Maxwell Kearse, Chief Counsel of the 2nd DDC, Kearse stated that she and the 2nd DDC are not subject to the jurisdiction of the First Department Court and therefore could do as they please, or words to that effect; Kearse factually defies the Orders of the First Department Court so as to preclude the complaints against Rubenstein, Joao, and Krane.


Were it not for Iviewit’s discovery of the conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety in Krane’s response for Rubenstein and Proskauer, the attorneys would have received discipline by reprimand, suspension, or disbarment, where such discipline would have been positively reflected in a variety of complaints across domestic and international agencies, but particularly the Iviewit intellectual property investigation being conducted by Harry I. Moatz, the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Were it not for the stalling of the Rubenstein and Joao complaints at the 1st DDC, and the unpublished nature of the First Department Court’s order, the transfer to an equally conflicted 2nd DDC, and the dismissal of the Rubenstein, Proskauer, Joao, Meltzer and Krane complaints by the 2nd DDC in reckless disregard for the Order of the First Department Court, Iviewit shareholders would not have suffered the damages of:

Emotional distress; and
Loss of consortium with their families; and
On a personal note, lost savings in the amount of approximately One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000); and
Lost value of the equity interest in the capital stock in Iviewit Holdings, Inc. in an amount that can approach One Trillion Dollars ($1,000,000,000,000).

Consequently, considering the above set of circumstances, the state of affairs in New York will never right itself absent Federal intervention, and Iviewit again respectfully requests: (i) the attendance, by individuals at your discretion, at the New York State’s Thursday, September 24, 2009 hearing; (ii) and once familiar with the state of affairs, the appointment of a Federal monitor to administer the 1st DDC, the DDC’s, and the CJC; and (iii) the appointment of a Special Prosecutor to investigate and prosecute the commission of these Federal crimes.

Thank you for your attention to these matters, and Iviewit looks forward to your earliest replies.

Very truly yours,


Chief Executive Officer

Reply to Address:

35 Locust Avenue
Rye, N.Y. 10580

Cc: The Hon. David A. Paterson (c)
New York State Governor
Office of the Governor of New York State
State Capitol
Albany, New York 12224

The Hon. Boyd M. Johnson III (c)
Deputy United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Public Corruption Unit
United States Department of Justice
One St. Andrew’s Plaza
New York, New York 10007

The Hon. Andrew M. Cuomo (c)
New York State Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General of New York State
The Capitol
Albany, New York 12224-0341

The Hon. Loretta Preska (c)
Chief U. S. District Judge
United States Courthouse
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007-1312

The Hon. Luis A. Gonzales (c)
Presiding Justice, New York State Appellate Division, 1st Dept.
27 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10010

The Hon. Joseph M. Demarest, Jr. (c)
Assistant Director in Charge, New York Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
26 Federal Plaza, 23rd Floor
New York, New York 10278-0004

Source of Above QUOTE
Lamont - Iviewit
More on the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV - Eliot Bernstein's Website or the Blog of Crystal L. Cox Industry Whistleblower
Crystal L. Cox