Judge Orders Depositions In Proskauer Malpractice Suit - Ascent Media Group LLC - Proskauer Rose LLP, William Frazee, Judge Robert L. Hess - Janel Ablon of Littler Mendelson PC

>> Saturday, July 16, 2011

"Judge Orders Depositions In Proskauer Malpractice Suit

Law360, Los Angeles (July 13, 2011) -- A California state judge ruled Wednesday that in-house attorneys for Ascent Media Group LLC must provide depositions as part of a former executive's malpractice suit against Proskauer Rose LLP over the firm's alleged conflict of interest during two sexual harassment investigations.

William Frazee claims Proskauer had a conflict of interest in representing both him and Ascent in the investigations, both of which were resolved in mediation but later led to a dispute between Frazee and his employer over fees stemming from the proceedings.

While Judge Robert L. Hess granted Frazee's request for depositions, he refused to compel Ascent attorneys William Niles and Niloofar Shepherd to produce documents related to the investigations.

He also denied a motion to depose Jackie Lee, a vice president at Ascent. Frazee's attorney, Samuel J. Smith of SJS Counsel APC, argued that Lee — who allegedly declined to have Frazee investigated for a third sexual harassment claim — could show that Proskauer did not do a thorough job defending Frazee against the allegations. But Judge Hess said Lee's alleged decisions not to have a claim against Frazee investigated had nothing to do with the legal malpractice accusation.

“This argument you're making has no logical force, frankly,” Judge Hess told Smith before delivering his ruling. “I'm thoroughly unimpressed.”

The mixed ruling could shed more light on Proskauer's alleged conflict of interest and comes almost seven months after Frazee sued the firm.

Frazee claims Proskauer failed to inform him of attorneys' fees liabilities during the two sexual harassment arbitration hearings and other legal matters. In doing so, Proskauer put the interests of Ascent ahead of Frazee, the lawsuit alleges.

Former Ascent employee Carrie Zuzenak sued the company and Frazee for sexual harassment in 2006, and that case, which was handled by Proskauer, was settled in mediation and Frazee was given a reprimand by the company, according to the complaint.

Then in March 2010, another employee, Addie Hall, sued Ascent and Frazee for sexual harassment, according to the suit. Both sides in Hall's case agreed to mediation in July 2010, and Frazee was given another reprimand, according to the complaint.

In November, Ascent filed its own arbitration claim against Frazee, claiming the lawsuits and arbitration proceedings were outside the scope of his employment and that he must reimburse the company for $500,000 in attorneys' fees, expenses and settlement payments.

Frazee alleges in his lawsuit against Ascent that Proskauer failed to advise him to seek independent legal counsel and that attorneys failed to obtain a release from Ascent for legal fees. Frazee also claims Proskauer improperly settled two proceedings without his consent.

Proskauer's attorney, Janel Ablon of Littler Mendelson PC, argued that discovery in the malpractice lawsuit should be stayed until after arbitration proceedings between Frazee and Ascent were done, but Judge Hess said he wanted to make sure the lawsuit was not stalled.

Ablon told the judge Niles and Shepherd would be ready for depositions in August.

Frazee is represented Samuel J. Smith of SJS Counsel APC.

Proskauer is represented by Janel Ablon of Littler Mendelson PC.

The case is Frazee v. Proskauer Rose LLP et al., case number BC452417, in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. "

Source of Proskauer Rose LLP - Proskauer Rose Attorney Post

Proskauer Rose Lawyers are Famous for Getting away with Perjured Depositions, So Watch for This.

Got A Tip on This Case or on Proskauer Malpractice Suit, Proskauer Rose LLP,  William Frazee, Ascent Media Group,  Judge Robert L. Hess, Niloofar Shepherd,  William Niles - email your tip to Crystal@CrystalCox.com 


Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose does nothing to "Clean Up" Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Why?

>> Friday, April 29, 2011

Proskauer Rose has been involved in a major scandal for over a Decade.  The FBI, Department of Justice, SEC, Florida Supreme Court, Florida State Bar, New York Supreme Court, New York Bar and more have known about this massive fraud for over a decade.

Now the Solution that Proskauer Rose LLP has come up with in order to STOP the Truth from getting to shareholders and investigators is to take the domain names of an investigative blogger, me ~ Crystal L. Cox.  Though I have done nothing but EXPOSE the TRUTH about Proskauer Rose Law Firm.

Proskauer Rose is named in SEC Complaint, what is Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose's new "Head Guy" doing to investigate this?  The solution seems to be to try and intimidate an investigative blogger to cover up decades of secrets, crimes, scandals and cover ups of Proskauer Rose Law Firm.

When Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose should really take a look at ALL the documents, evidence of the iViewit Technologies Case, as there is proof on top of proof of Proskauer Rose attorneys involvement and it is without a doubt a major Liability to Proskauer Rose. 

There is no way to look at all the evidence against Proskauer Rose in the iViewit Stolen Technology case and to not see that Proskauer Rose attorneys are GUILTY.  So why is Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose putting his career on the line as new "Head Guy" to support criminals that are now under his management ???

Taking the Domain Names of an Investigative Blogger will now STOP the Truth.  There is too much evidence proving the Real Facts of the Stolen iViewit Technology and the Involvement of Proskauer Rose Law Firm. 

Here are Some Links to Educate Joseph Leccese, Head Guy at Proskauer Rose Law Firm on the major liability of Proskauer Rose over the Stolen iViewit Technology, in which Joseph Leccese seems to have been lied about by Proskauer Rose attorneys involved such as Kenneth Rubenstein, Matthew Triggs and former Proskauer Rose Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler. 

SEC Complaint Naming Proskauer Rose with Details as to what REALLY Happened

Proskauer Rose Liability information

Kenneth Rubenstein's Perjured Deposition

Proskauer Rose Crime Chart

Gregg Mashberg Knows of Fraud and the Connections to Whistleblower Cases 
in High Courts of New York

Proskauer Rose Sued in Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit over Iviewit Stolen Technology

Information on this Case related to a major Whistleblower Case out of New York

Proskauer Rose MPEG LA Lawyer Sued Over Patents

Lots of Documents, Videos and Information on the FACTS of the Case, should Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose take a good look at the real risk Proskauer Rose face over this 10 year plus case. 

Other Links on Proskauer Rose involved in Major Technology Theft

There are over 1200 Documents Online, and massive prove in many federal agencies, federal courts, state bars and for some reason all are protecting Proskauer Rose Law Firm and NOT protecting the Rights of the United States Inventors which is a Constitutional Right.  Proskauer Rose is NOT above the Law unless everyone ignores the blatant evidence that proves that Proskauer Rose did in FACT commit these crime and is liable without a doubt for a 13 Trillion Dollar technology theft.  


Proskauer Rose LLP Gregg M. Mashberg Knows FULL Well that Stephen Lamont has NO Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

Proskauer Rose Law Firm Knows that Stephen Lamont has NO LEGAL Right to Speak on Behalf of iViewit.

So why is the Corrupt Law Firm of Proskauer Rose Responding to an Illegal Filing by Stephen Lamont on Behalf of Iviewit Technologies?

Could it be that Gregg Mashberg of Proskauer Rose is doing this to deliberately fraud the courts, as Stephen Lamont is VERY Connected to Judith Kaye, ex-supreme court judge who was married to Proskauer Rose Partner Stephen Kaye - and Judith Kaye use to Work at IBM and is connected with William Dick who also use to work at IBM and is connected to the Iviewit Patent Suppression and iViewit Invention Theft.

So it seems to me that New York Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose Law Firm is deliberately frauding the courts and the motive seems to me to be to cause further stalling of the Iviewit Technology patent and to further prolong the Federal RICO Lawsuit against Proskauer Rose, the Criminal Complaint and SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose and to Protect the Corrupt MPEG LA to keep making Billions a year on a technology that Kenneth Rubenstein of Proskauer Rose LLP knew he had stolen for MPEG LA over a Decade Ago.

So why is this all going on Right Now?

What is P. Stephen Lamont up to with Gregg M. Mashberg and the Pro Se Party over there at the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm?

Eliot Bernstein did Not initiate this at this Time, P. Stephen Lamont did and P. Stephen Lamont has No Legal Right to Speak for Eliot Bernstein, nor does P. Stephen Lamont have a right to speak for the iViewit Investors or the iViewit Inventors.

For Proskauer Rose LLP to Continue in this scam, they are blatantly playing games on Judge Shira Scheindlin and making a mockery out of the New York Courts. Gregg M. Mashberg, Proskauer Rose is Doing This Deliberately to confuse the issue and to keep Stephen Lamont involved somehow. All the Motives here are Unclear, and well it is not like YOU can Complain to the New York Bar - as Proskauer Rose LLP controls the New York Bar.

Stephen Lamont is Under Investigation for Fraudulently Representing iViewit and other Suspected Illegal Activities and though Gregg M. Mashberg and Proskauer Rose LLP KNOW this, still Gregg M. Mashberg files this JOKE on the New York Courts, Why?

Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLP

Just How Corrupt is Gregg M. Mashberg - I mean Come on Stephen Lamont ILLEGALLY Files a "Bernstein Vs. Appellate Division First Department..." and Even though Gregg Mashberg, Proskauer Rose LLP Attorney KNOWS that P. Stephen Lamont has No Right to Do so, Still Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP has a RESPONSE Delivered?

A Hand Delivered Response from Gregg M. Mashberg of Proskauer Rose LLP to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. Proskauer Rose LLP, Attorney Gregg M. Mashberg RESPONDS to P. Stephen Lamont's Fraudulent Court Filings on Behalf of iViewit when Gregg M. Mashberg - Proskauer Rose LLPAttorrney knows that Stephen Lamont has no Right to be filing anything on behalf of iViewit.

Proskauer Rose LLP, Gregg M. Mashberg Attorneys Pro Se for Proskauer Rose LLP
and Attorneys for Kenneth Rubenstein, Steven C. Krane and and the Estate of Steven Rackow Kaye .. and "Respectfully Submitted" - that is BULL - it is Lies and Cover Ups and no Respect Intended..

The Corrupt Proskauer Rose LLP is Still representing themselves in the Iviewit Stolen Technology Case. Odd that 2 of the Above Attorneys have Died, and they are VERY Guilty of Stealing a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent. And yet still Proskauer Ross LLP seems to Run the New York Justice System and Get Their Way.

There is Tons of Proof on Proskauer Rose's Guilt in the Stealing of the Iviewit Technologies Invention and in Proskauer Roses Law Firm using this to Entice Enron, which led to the Collapse of Enron and Billions Lost to Investors. Which is the Same thing that Will Soon happen at Intel Corp. , Time Warner, Warner Bros., SONY, Lockheed Martin, and More..

So what is Gregg M. Mashberg and the Corrupt Proskauer Rose Law Firm Really Up to with this, the Latest Stunt in the Decade Old Saga of Proskauer Rose Patent Thieves for MPEG LA.

Click Here for Eliot Bernstein iViewit Technology SEC Complaint Against Proskauer Rose, Kenneth Rubenstein, Stephen Kaye, MPEG LA and many others...

Got a Tip on Gregg M. Mashberg or Proskauer Rose LLP ?
eMail me Crystal L. Cox ~ Investigative Blogger


Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Perjured Deposition Proskauer Rose - MPEG LA for Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein

Part 1
Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition
Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein.

Kenneth Rubenstein - Patent Attorney Proskauer Rose Partner

Hear More on Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Deposition Proskauer Rose & MPEG LA for Iviewit & Eliot Bernstein at Eliot Bernstein's Iviewit Technologies Channel - Click Here

More on the Iviewit Stolen Patent at
www.Iviewit.TV and www.DeniedPatent.com


Christopher C. Wheeler, Matthew Triggs - Proskauer Rose Frauds the Florida Supreme Court. What is Proskauer Rose man in charge Joseph Leccese Doing About it ?

Christopher Clark Wheeler - Proskauer Rose LLP Corrupt Patent Attorney, Protected by Proskauer Rose Law Firm, the Florida and New York Supreme Court.

" Take a moment to honor the original conspirator, Christopher Clark Wheeler, one of the main suspects and ringleaders of the crime who has subsequently been charged with a Felony Driving Under the Influence Charge with Injury making his credibility as an attorney further mired in crimes.

An arrest warrant was been issued in that matter, click Wheeler's picture on the left for the Delray Beach Police Department report or this link -Wheeler's arrest report or this one for the PD blotter.

So where his more serious crimes, like fraud on a whole bunch of government agencies and foreign nations now landed Iviewit and its shareholders at the United States Supreme Court to present our case for  violations of public office by Chris Wheeler and Matthew Triggs, Wheeler going with this further public nuisance crime upon his head.

Christophe Wheeler, the main protagonist, the first attorney to revel the inventions and be disclosed the processes, is found recklessly endangering lives, now drunk and a true danger to himself and society.

In addition, the Petition filed by Iviewit contained allegations and evidence that linked the President of the Florida Bar and others to conflicts.

The Florida Supreme Court ordered a response to the Petition by the Florida Bar and what was set forth in response was perhaps the most incompetent legal response (Illiterate Florida Bar Response to Petition) ever by the Florida Bar, authored by Eric Turner - Chief Branch Officer, and Eric Turner completed law school.

Authored with a complaint filed against him, which should have precluded his response in conflict, yet Turner so stressed out writes a letter that is legally and intelligibly incoherent, even addressing the Florida Supreme Court improperly and this is a Chief Counsel of The Florida Bar.

For this letter alone Eric Turner should have been sent back to law school.

Turners response fails to address any of the allegations in the Petition as demanded by the SCF order and instead states that the Florida Barreview work was done well.

The problem, the review was done and included responses tendered byMatthew Triggs as attorney for his partner Wheeler, while Matthew Triggs was in a confirmed black-out period at the Florida Bar where he was unable to represent any party due to his public office position with the Florida Bar.

Iviewit filed with the SCF a rebuttal identifying the Florida Bar failure to address the questions in the Petition and asking for a default judgment and also due to Turner's response failing to properly identify parties including the SCF, Rebuttal Response.

Further, the exhibits in the illiterate response done by Eric Turner which contain the Florida Bar reviewers (no investigation was undertaken) assessment of the Wheeler complaint, are all invalid, as Wheeler's responses where all tendered by Matthew Triggs in conflict but what is interesting to note is how each reviewer attempts to claim that they found no wrong doing or that Proskauer Rose was not patent counsel.

Without any investigation, the Florida Bar is not allowed by their own rules to make any opinions in favor of either party and may only decline to undertake investigation.

Yet, the conflicts, unknown and concealed by Christopher Wheeler andMatthew Triggs had worked there magic and influenced the Florida Bar to attempt to write exculpatory language on behalf of Proskauer Rose, one wonders what the cost of buying off justice cost.

The Florida Bar acting more as a defacto attorney protection agency versus a consumer organization, where even after being caught inconflicts and violations of public office - attorneys remain not prosecuted and where citizen complaints to The Florida Bar have been denied being filed quite inapposite the intent of the Florida Constitution in creating a bar and inapposite of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.

When citizens are denied the right to complain about elected officials violating clearly established laws inapposite the rules of procedure, it is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union.

Shocking but true, just look up the case and watch it as it now is up for appeal at the United States Supreme Court and there is more corruption following, this time a similar series of conflicts of interest, improprieties and abuses of public office in New York, where court ordered investigations have been derailed and other miscellaneous fodder. "

Source of Above

Proskauer Rose LLP - Chris Wheeler Crimes

Exhibit 4 – Utley Resume as submitted by Christopher Wheeler to I View It and Board

Exhibit 19 – How to steal an applet, first act, Brian invention at home is 2nd attempt after this is foiled


Wheeler response to The initial small form Florida Bar complaint

Iviewit rebuttal to Wheeler response to The Florida Bar #1

some wheeler perjury to florida bar goes well with dui and somehow evades detection


matthew triggs - florida bar complaint - florida bar and florida supreme court refuse to docket formally the complaint although it has affirmed violations of triggs public office as a member of the florida bar and conflicting his representation of wheeler. currently under review at the united states supreme court.

supreme court of florida - iviewit original filing

florida bar response to supreme court order to respond to petition

fails to deal with any substantive issues of the petition and as such stands in default. they claim to have done a good review to the supreme court and where such review contained conflicted responses from triggs, that would have invalidated the prior reviews.

response is unintelligible and addresses parties incorrectly such as (this court) when more appropriately (this Court) and other such defined term problems.

iviewit rebuttal to florida bar non-response - supreme court of florida
florida bar response - another turner classic

Of interest -- inventor Bernstein has since discovery of the inventions told of how the inventions came to be as coming in dreams as gifts from G0D to help your children save the planet. This makes the crimes even more insidious, to read of this fascinating truth of how these inventions came to be visit the inventor. 

More on the Corrupt Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler


Proskauer Rose Law Firm involved in Major Video Technology Theft. Is Joseph Leccese, Head of Proskauer Rose doing anything?

"MPEG LA involved in Major Video Technology Theft. MPEG LA LLC stole the Iviewit Video Technology

Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General.

More Iviewit Proof of Fraud and MPEG LA Involvement. Proskauer Rose LLP Corruption. Patent Fraud ?

June 10, 1999 - Letter From DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - JOEL I. KLIEN of the Antitrust Division - Assistant Attorney General

Carey R. Ramos, Esq.
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10019-6064

Dear Mr. Ramos:

This letter is in response to your request on behalf of Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Mitsubishi Electric CorporationTime Warner Inc., Toshiba Corporation, and Victor Company of Japan, Ltd. (collectively, the "Licensors"), for the issuance of a business review letter pursuant to the Department of Justice's Business Review Procedure, 28 C.F.R. § 50.6.

You have requested a statement of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement intentions with respect to a proposed arrangement pursuant to which Toshiba will assemble and offer a package license under the Licensors' patents that are "essential," as defined below, to manufacturing products in compliance with the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats and will distribute royalty income to the other Licensors.

I. The DVD-ROM and DVD-Video Formats

The Standard Specifications for the DVD-ROM and DVD-Video formats describe the physical and technical parameters for DVDs for read-only-memory and video applications, respectively, and "rules, conditions and mechanisms" for player units for the two formats.

(1) In either format, the DVD has more than seven times the storage capacity of a compact disc; a single-layer, single-sided DVD, for example, can store 4.7 billion bytes (4.38 GB) of information including audio, video, text, and data. Employing compression technology, a DVD-Video disc can hold a 135-minute feature film on a single side.

The Licensors, along with a number of other producers of consumer electronics hardware, software, or both,

(2) established the Standard Specifications.

(3) These Standard Specifications appear to implicate the intellectual property rights of numerous firms.

II. The Proposed Arrangement

A memorandum of understanding among the Licensors (the "MOU," attached as Exhibit 1 to your letter) sets forth the central terms of the proposed arrangement, pursuant to which Toshiba will aggregate the Licensors' "essential" patents and disseminate rights under them to makers of Digital Versatile Discs (DVDs), DVD players, and DVD decoders

(4) ("DVD Products"), and distribute royalty income to the other Licensors. The arrangement will be carried out through a group of other agreements, including:

(1) a license that Toshiba will receive from each other Licensor to enable Toshiba to license users of the Standard Specifications under that Licensor's "essential" patents (the "Authorization Agreement," attached as Exhibit 3); (2) Toshiba's sublicense to makers of DVD Products under the Licensors' patents (the "DVD Patent License," attached as Exhibit 2);

(3) an agreement among the Licensors concerning the retention and authority of experts to select and evaluate the patents to be licensed (the "Expert Agreement," attached as Exhibit 4); and

(4) the "Ground Rules for Royalty Allocation" (attached as Exhibit 7), which set forth the formula that will determine how Toshiba will distribute royalties among the Licensors.

(5) A. The patents to be licensed In the MOU, the Licensors commit to license each other and third parties to make, use and sell DVD Products under their present and future patents that are "essential" to doing so.

(6) The Licensors agree to two separate means of carrying out this obligation. First, they agree to grant Toshiba the right to sublicense third parties under their present and future "essential" patents for these purposes, and Toshiba agrees in turn to sublicense those patents, along with its own such patents, in the DVD Patent Licenses.

(7) Second, each Licensor agrees to "offer to license its essential DVD patents on a non-exclusive basis to interested third-party licensees pursuant to separate negotiations on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, whether or not said third-party licensees intend to make, use and sell DVD products that are in conformity with the Specifications."

(8) A Licensor's patent is "essential," and thus subject to the commitments in the MOU, if it is "necessarily infringed," or "there is no realistic alternative" to it, "in implementing the DVD Standard Specifications."

(9) Initially, each Licensor will identify its own "essential" patents in an attachment to its Authorization Agreement with Toshiba.

(10) Toshiba will then incorporate those patents in a list attached to the DVD Patent License.

(11) Shortly, however, an expert individual or panel, with "full and sufficient knowledge and skill in the relevant technology,"

(12) will complete a review the patents each Licensor has designated as "essential" in order to determine whether they satisfy the MOU criteria.

(13).MOU, ¶ 8; Expert Agreement, preamble.

(14) At that time, any patent initially designated by a Licensor for inclusion in the DVD Patent License that the expert determines is not "essential" will be excluded from subsequent DVD Patent Licenses, although current licensees will have the option to retain it in their existing licenses.

(15) The expert will repeat this comprehensive review of all the patents in the DVD Patent License portfolio every four years.

(16) In between the quadrennial reviews, the proposed program also provides a mechanism by which the expert may review individual patents whose essentiality comes into question. If a Licensor comes to a good faith conclusion that a licensed patent is not "essential," and provides a reasonable basis for that belief, the expert will re-examine the patent.

(17) If the expert concludes that the patent is not "essential," the patent will be excluded from the DVD Patent License.

(18) The agreement provides that the expert's determinations are "conclusive and non-appealable," although the expert must submit a report explaining any decision that a patent was not "essential."

(19) Compensation will be at the expert's "standard hourly rates."

(20) Each Licensor will bear the cost of the expert's review of its patents; the Licensors will share costs attributable to all of them, such as time spent reviewing the DVD Standard Specifications.

(21) The expert, although retained by the Licensors and selected by a majority vote among them, will not have an economic affiliation with any individual Licensor.

(22) A majority of the Licensors may remove the expert for failure or inability to perform the duties set forth in the Expert Agreement "in a professional, competent, reliable or timely manner."

(23) Although the proposed licensing program currently includes the patents of only the Licensors, it is open to any owner of an "essential" patent willing to license on the program's terms and conditions.(24)

Full Letter and Source of Post

Save and Print the Above for Your Records.

Note: over the Last year of Writing on iViewt the companies at the top of this post have been all over my Blogs, they Ignore what is happening because the UPSTO, US Judges, Corrupt Law Firms like Foley and Lardner and ALL on my blog at http://www.deniedpatent.com/ seem to be protected by US Billionaires and Politicians. THEY knwo that the Massive Shareholder Liability is Inevitable and Are Protecting themselve from it.

No ONE is Protecting Investors or Inventors.

More on the Massive Shareholder Fraud Coming Soon to a Pocket Book near You.



  © Blogger template Webnolia by Ourblogtemplates.com 2009

Back to TOP