Matthew Triggs Proskauer Rose Law Firm Florida Bar Complaint
"FLORIDA BAR COMPLAINT – PART TWO
MATTHEW H. TRIGGS THE LAW OF FIRM PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Page 7 of 63
Thursday, July 22, 2004 - 7:50:10 AM
and other state and federal agencies, all to the detriment of Iviewit shareholders
by loss of rights and ownership in the patents, and all appear to benefit
Proskauer;
xiii. Proskauer set up identically named corporations to receive patents, whereby the
shareholders of Iviewit, venture capital firms invested in Iviewit and the
inventors now hold no definable interest in such exactly identical named
company as the Proskauer Entity, according to OED, certain core technologies
which are supposed to be owned by Iviewit and invented by Iviewit inventors
are not, and although listed as Iviewit assets by Proskauer for inducement to
invest, they end up in the Proskauer Entity or other John Doe companies that
may not be known to exist, all through fraud and deceit;
xiv. all of these actions have now caused actions in the state Supreme Courts of
New York and Florida and federal actions by the USPTO Commissioner of
Patents (“Commissioner”) as will be recited herein.
xv. The cost of this “corporate general advice and corporate set-up” as Proskauer
bills for it, cost Iviewit, a start-up technology company with intellectual
property, approximately eight hundred thousand dollars ($800,000.00) with
none of that bill for protecting the patents, according to the Proskauer story.
According to Proskauer’s tale but the truth of this, and it is Iviewit’s contention
all along, that Proskauer falsified all of their bill and further submitted such
false and fraudulent records, whereby in an attempt to cover up after being
caught, and now for an additional two years as Iviewit learned what happened in
this conspiracy, whereby patent work in the billings and hosts of meetings in the
beginning of the Iviewit and Proskauer relationship are all missing from bills
Proskauer submitted in the Litigation, all evidenced prior in the Wheeler
Complaint. In fact, much of the bill submitted to the 15C, in the billing case is
on an Iviewit entity that does not exist or whereby other billings are missing for
each of the 13 companies known.
Further, in the original billing case Proskauer levied on Iviewit, Proskauer in fact sued entities that they factually had no billings or retainers with, some of which appear to be attempts to build debt on
Iviewit patent companies, which at the time seemed very strange when Complainant did not know such companies at the time held patents as it was not discovered by OED at that time, yet it seem strange and Proskauer was forced to re-file the complaint against Iviewit in the 15C.
xvi. Which after changing such billings, to remove Kenneth Rubenstein
(“Rubenstein”) State of New York Supreme Court – Appellate Division First
Department (“NY Department”) Docket 2003.0531 (“Rubenstein Complaint”),
Rubenstein, Wheeler and Rubenstein felt confident in deposition stating they
new nothing of the technologies and did no patent work, and other such false
and misleading statements, made to tribunals inapposite the truth. Complainant
feels that a review of such matters as in the Wheeler Complaint alone, will
prove these statements false.
Source and Full Matthew Triggs Proskauer Rose Law Firm Florida Bar Complaint
No comments:
Post a Comment