"Enter William Dick of Foley to Replace Raymond Joao - Misrepresentation, Fraud, Lies, Deceit, IBM Connections - Kenneth Rubenstein Corruption -
"Once
Raymond Joao was under “investigation” by Proskauer Rose he was then terminated from service by them, Proskauer instantly found an old friend of Christopher Wheeler’s, a one William Dick of Foley and Christopher Wheeler vouched for his friend William Dick to the Board of Directors.
William Dick, according to
Christopher C. Wheeler was IBM’s Patent Counsel for IBM’s far eastern patent pool.
William Dick was also friends and former coworker at IBM and then again with Friedkin with another of Christopher Wheeler’s referrals to the Iviewit companies,
Brian G. Utley, who was appointed President of the Iviewit companies whereby Christopher Wheeler had presented a
falsified resume for Brian Utley to the Board, Shareholders and Investors, a falsified resume in several key ways.
First, the resume presented to the Board by Christopher Wheeler and
Proskauer Rose claimed Brian Utley was a college graduate, in deposition Brian Utley utterly denies ever graduating.
The most important fraud on the resume though was on
the point of his past employmentwhereby it stated that due to Brian Utley’s innovations for the company, Diamond Turf Equipment, owned by
Monte Friedkinhad grown to be one of the best and largest companies of its kind due to Brian Utley’s running that company.
Per
Monte Friedkin, it was more like
ruining the company, as when Monte Friedkin found Brian Utley, William Dick and Christopher Wheeler stealing Inventions from him, he fired Utley and closed the shop entirely down taking a several million dollar loss.
Major misrepresentation of Brian Utley by Proskauer’s Christopher C. Wheeler but even more astonishing is that the same crew of Brian Utley, Christopher Wheeler and William Dick were involved in the Monte Friedkin frauds.
Many perjured statements regarding these events were submitted to official investigatory bodies and courts and evidence of these perjurious statements have been included in the Exhibit and Linkage Section under the individuals names.
Prior to learning of their seedy past, which had been misrepresented to the Board, Investors and Shareholders, as neither Williamm Dick nor Christopher Wheeler
disclosed their past historytogether at Friedkin’s with Brian G. Utley, nor did they share the information of the failed invention theft with anyone else.
Of course, if they did disclose the attempted theft, nobody would have retained them; everyone was in the dark as they handed out falsified resumes and financials to Investment Bankers, Iviewit Investors, Iviewit Shareholders, including the SBA and more.
Foley entered the scene under similar false pretenses with
Christopher Wheeler vouching for William Dick’s integrity and again failing to notify anyone of their prior failed invention theft.
Instantly, Foley identified a mass of problems with Raymond Joao’s filing but claimed they could correct everything, such as missing assignments, missing inventors, missing patent disclosure information, etc.
Again, I myself and
the Iviewit Board and Shareholders trusted yet another
large law firmin the IP field referred again by Proskauer Rose and this time Foley assured Investors, Investment Banks and Shareholders that they could and would fix the problems with Raymond Joao’s filing and so they were retained, again, Proskauer’s
Kenneth Rubenstein as oversight.
After several months,
Brian Utley came to me and asked me to
sign blank patent applications for filings the inventors had not reviewed, Brian Utley claiming they needed to be filed that day, which again was false, as they were not due for several days, Brian Utley persisting that the Inventors had no time for review and that he did not have the IP filing applications to review before signing and could not get them.
Noticing several
large patent binders on his desk I went to pick them up with another founder and inventor of the Iviewit technologies,
James Frazier Armstrong, and what was discovered inside them was both astonishing and criminal.
Inside the binders were
intellectual property filings with now
Brian Utley as sole inventor of technologies including for example an application titled
“Zoom and Pan on a Digital Camera” and another
“Zoom Image Design Applet” both inventions of which Brian Utley was not even employed at the time of invention.
Further, Brian Utley replaced original inventors on original patent filings, those filed incorrectly by Raymond Joao, Foley fraudulently replacing inventors
Zakirul Shirajee and Jude Rosario with Brian Utley on filings, again Brian Utley was nowhere near the scene of invention.
Foley now found continuing the Joao fraud it appeared although at the time hard for almost anyone to believe.
Further, there were now two or more sets of patents, which almost were identical but were wholly different, as one set missed the inventions entirely and was fraught with bad math and major errors, the others with Utley’s name seemed to be the broader and more correct filings.
In fact, some of the IP found in the binders taken
from Brian Utley were for Intellectual Properties already filed at US Patent Office without anyone’s knowledge, including the Inventors, Shareholders or the Board of Directors, patents that were solely ( or soullessly ) in Utley’s name, being sent to his home address, not Iviewit’s and more.
Almost identical to the
Monte Friedkin theft whereby William Dick wrote Friedkin’s inventions into Brian Utley’s name and filed them into a corporation incorporated by
Proskauer Rose and
Christopher Wheeler, outside Friedkin’s employ and without Friedkin’s knowledge or consent.
These fraudulent applications led to immediate taped meetings regarding the fraudulent IP with Foley and
Proskauer Partners, Board Members and Shareholders where it was further learned that assignments were missing, inventors were wrong and the patent applications remained filled with errors, I submit to the Committee under the Exhibits and Linkage section of the prepared statement a sample of the IP errors, contained in William Dick’s Virginia Bar Complaint Rebuttal.
Foley was to correct everything in time for the filings, the inventors then corrected the patents, and yet Foley still filed the fraudulent patents with the bad math and other fraudulent information, discarding the inventors’ changes and continuing the fraud.
The cat was almost out of the bag at that time, yet it was almost impossible to believe that these were crimes and not some type of mistakes versus part of an organized criminal syndicate of lawyers and law firms attempting to steal inventions, which only later and still today are being unraveled. At the same time, other information indicating fraud began to surface.
The Arthur Andersen Audit, The
Enron Broadband Attempted Technology Transfers,the Collapse of both Enron and Arthur Andersen and the Ties to the Iviewit Inventions:
Another hidden and fraudulent set of events within the Iviewit companies links to Enron Broadband discovered at the same time that Arthur Andersen began a required Audit of the Iviewit Companies performed on behalf of Crossbow Ventures and their corresponding interests of the SBA on their SBIC loans.
Andersen’s Audit discovered identically and similarly named Corporate Shell companies and other misdeeds, as Iviewit also became aware of unauthorized technology transfers taking place by Utley, Dick and Wheeler that included one with Enron Broadband and Blockbuster Video.
Enron Broadband had booked
Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in revenue on a future deal with Blockbuster Video to stream full screen full frame video over the Internet, that once the crimes at Iviewit were beginning to be discovered, fell apart overnight. Many of those who fully understand the Enron fraud understand that the Broadband division’s fraud was the “straw that broke the camels back.”
As soon as no technology was to transfer in backdoor secret deals to stream or download the videos due to the investigations, and the scandal was unraveling quickly from the audits findings, everything
Enron Broadband and Enron had done had to become extinct overnight. Problem, they already had booked the revenue having forgotten the age-old proverb, “Don't count your chickens before they are hatched”, as greed often blinds the best and brightest too.
I note as an aside that the founder of Blockbuster,
Wayne Huizenga and his Son, were the seed investors in the Iviewit companies brought to Iviewit by Proskauer and now named Defendants in my
Federal Lawsuit.
Instantly, almost overnight, with discovery of the Iviewit fraud, both Andersen who was in the midst of the Iviewit audit that was revealing fraud and Enron vanished in scandal, in a trail of criminal document shredding to cover their tracks.
Seeing the danger they were in from the
exposure of the crimes, our trusted advisors, our retained lawyers and accountants, then began a document shredding of the Iviewit files to rid the evidence of the illegal technology transfers and other evidence revealing their criminal acts.
Similar to what Anderson now describes taking place in the First Department regarding the Cover-Up crimes alleged. According to Iviewit Employees stolen briefcases of cash of investor monies, including the SBA’s money, then used to bribe and attempt to bribe employees to steal proprietary equipment and trade secrets as indicated in one employees written statement contained in the referenced link in my Prepared Statement Submitted to this Committee @
http://Iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/SHAREHOLDER%20STATEMENTS%20BOOKMARKED.pdfWitness testimony on page 10 or found on the Iviewit Homepage under Evidence Link 784.
"Source of Posthttp://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ktIVkVh6K68J:www.iviewit.tv/20091005%2520NY%2520Judiciary%2520Committee%2520Prepared%2520Statement.doc+site://www.iviewit.tv+Reardon&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usProskauer SucksAlso Check Out
www.Iviewit.TV for More on this Proskauer Rose Deceit...
Kenneth RubensteinThe William Dick Bar Rebuttal from Eliot Bernsten is at the Link Below.
William Dick submitted documents which the patent office claimed where fraudulent which led to suspension and investigation.http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/2004%2003%2012%20William%20Dick%20Virginia%20Bar%20Complaint%20Response%20BOOKM.pdf
