Jeffrey Bewkes CEO of
Time Warner Inc. Continues to NOT Disclose Massive Shareholder Liability over the
Iviewit Stolen Technology and the Blatant NOT HONORED contracts with
Time Warner Inc. and Iviewit.
Curtis Lu -
Time Warner General Counsel Talks to iViewit in 2010 then Leaves Time Warner Inc. to be the General Counsel for Philip Falcones -
Harbinger Capital Partner 's - Lightsquared -
Click here for Curtis Lu Conversation with iViewit over the Stolen Technology, the Liability to Time Warner Inc. and More. "
2009-2010 Recent Communications with Warner Bros et al.
The SEC should note that while there is a long gap in time between the prior Iviewit and
Warner Bros et al. communications and contracts, that during the gap I was nevertheless actively pursuing my rights contrary to Smith’s claim that nothing has been done.
Factually, I have given similar information to several state, federal and international investigators, House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the New York Senate Judiciary Committee, many state and federal courts and more over the last several years.
During the gap in 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
www.iViewit.tv homepage.
· March 17, 2009 ~ Hall and I left a message for John Rogovin (“Rogovin”) ~ Executive Vice President and General Counsel @
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. with his assistant Ginger Tipton (“Tipton”) to arrange a business meeting to discuss the lawsuit liabilities, patent infringement liabilities, FASB NO. 5 accounting liabilities and regulatory issues that would likely result in
Massive Shareholder Liabilities if not quelled, if possible.
· April 23, 2009 ~ Hall and I left a second message for Rogovin with assistant Tipton, as the March 17, 2009 call was not returned although Tipton was aware that urgent time frames were involved.
· April 28, 2009 ~ Hall and I spoke to Rogovin’s office that referred us to Smith. The referral to Smith coming
despite his conflicts resulting from his previous involvement in the alleged fraud, the fact that he is a central witness in the matters and the fact that as a lawyer he has multiple legal conflicts of interest, as well as, corporate conflicts in handling the matters he is central too. Yet, these
conflicts would not matter unless Smith directly handled the matters, which he then did.
·
April 30, 2009 ~ Bernstein spoke to Smith’s assistant Yolanda who claimed that Smith was now tied up in litigation for two weeks and that he would get back with an answer shortly. This delay was despite pressing the need with Yolanda for urgent action on Smith’s part due to the
MASSIVE Shareholder liabilities and the need for a twenty-four hour response.
· May 28, 2009 ~
Time Warner Inc. Announces Plan to Separate AOL
http://bx.businessweek.com/america-online/view?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedeal.com%2Fcorporatedealmaker%2F2009%2F05%2Ftime_warner_aol_timeline.phpo The SEC should note the timing of this announcement with the delays in response by Warner Bros et al.’s Smith to the Iviewit notice of IP infringement liabilities and their involvement in my
Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit.
o The SEC should instantly ascertain if
Warner Bros et al. notified Shareholders and Auditors during these corporate restructurings of the impending and absolute liabilities, to determine if Shareholders were formally noticed of the massive
Twelve Count Twelve Trillion Dollar Lawsuit liability and additional patent infringement liabilities.
Further, the SEC must determine if full disclosure by Counsel was concealed, including but not limited to, Smith and Rogovin. Finally, the question further arises of if the liabilities were properly accounted for in the Audited Financials for the separation transactions, where it does not appear to have been.
Obviously, if these
material facts regarding massive liabilities were omitted from financial reporting, Shareholders would have Rescissory Rights from the securities fraud by the Officers. As evidenced in the following series of communications, not only is counsel notified and fails to disclose the liabilities but Officers, Directors and Auditors of the companies when contacted regarding the liabilities, all fail to handle the issues as fiducially required by law.
· October 07, 2009 ~
Eliot Bernstein letter to
Wayne Smith regarding setting up meeting to discuss matters that could have Catastrophic effect on the Shareholders. Smith already advised by Tipton, per confirmation with Tipton, of the
Time Sensitive Nature and the seriousness of the liabilities in relation to their Shareholders.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091007%20Eliot%20Bernstein%20letter%20to%20Wayne%20Smith%20re%20Warner%20Bros%20AOL%20meeting%20request.pdf· November 23, 2009 ~ Hall spoke directly with Smith, who claimed to Hall that he was not the best person to handle the matters but that he instead was assembling a team from
Warner Bros et al. to discuss the matters and would get back to Hall. Yet, instead of putting a team together, Smith continued handling the matters despite the multiple conflicts.
· November 30, 2009 ~ Hall sent a letter to Smith reviewing their call @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/20091201%20Wayne%20Smith%20Fax%20Email%20Demand%20Receipt%20of%20Kevin%20Hall%20Confirmation%20Letter.pdf· December 02, 2009 ~ Smith response to Hall request for meeting @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091202%20Wayne%20Smith%20Response%20Warner%20Bros%20to%20Iviewit%20letter%2012-2-09.pdfo It should be noted by the SEC here, that the above linked exhibit has two attachments from February and March 2002.
Whereby, despite the previously exhibited evidence herein, including but not limited to, Signed NDA’s, Admission of Use and Violation of NDA’s by a Warner Bros. employee and
a SIGNED LICENSING AGREEMENT, the letter and the attached letters all attempt to deny these material incontestable facts, facts omitted in annual reports as well.
· December 09, 2009 ~ AOL Time Warner completes split.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/8403302.stm· December 18, 2009 ~ Hall and Bernstein response to December 02, 2009 Warner Bros. letter @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091218%20FINAL%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Demand%20Letter36889%20SIGNED%20KRHEIB%20fax.pdfhttp://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091218%20FINAL%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20Demand%20Letter%20Cover%20Email.pdf· December 23, 2009 ~ Warner Bros. Letter from Smith to Iviewit and Bernstein.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091223%20Warner%20Bros%20Wayne%20Smith%20to%20Bernstein%20Response.pdfo Note that in this letter Smith claims that,
“Your
time-barred claims hinge almost entirely on an internal email written by
David Colter on January 15, 2002 - an email he subsequently disavowed and admitted that he had written (and improperly provided you with a copy) only as a personal favor to you.”
This statement attempts to deny that liability claims were based on Multiple Signed NDA’s, Admission of Use by Warner Employees, Admission of Violation of NDA’s by
Warner Bros. employees, a
SIGNED LICENSING AND SERVICING AGREEMENT, correspondences and notices of an ongoing Federal Lawsuit, etc.
The SEC should not that in my
Federal RICO and ANTITRUST Lawsuit both Smith and Calkins are central witnesses and actors directly involved, again conflicting Smith’s involvement in the matter.
Note that
Wayne Smith is a licensed and practicing attorney and therefore has additional conflicts of interest and ethical violations under the
Attorney Conduct Code, in addition to
the Corporate Conflicts of Interest in handling the matters, again where he is directly involved in the alleged crimes described herein.
· December 29, 2009 ~ Hall and I, unclear if Smith had notified Senior Executives and Auditors or concealed the matters in an attempt to bury them despite our letters demand for him to copy all companies Executives, Board, Counsel and Auditors, contacted
Warner Bros et al. Officers, Directors and Auditors directly.
The first AOL Inc. spokesperson, returning our call to determine if Smith had contacted them was a one Jerry McKinley (“McKinley”) ~ Sr. Liaison of Executive Escalation at AOL Inc. calling to follow up on earlier messages to Tim Armstrong (“Armstrong”) ~ Chairman and CEO of AOL Inc. and others. A follow up letter to our call with McKinley can be found @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20091231%20Jerry%20McKinley%20AOL%20Inc%20letter%20Re%20Wayne%20Smith%20Warner%20Bros%20response.pdfo McKinley was then given critical documents expressing the urgent nature of these matters and McKinley was to get back to Hall and me instantly with confirmation that the named Executives, Officers and Auditors from the companies had received the
URGENT TIME SENSITIVE documents regarding the liabilities.
McKinley then took a vacation the next day and was unavailable to answer calls despite knowing that the documents had a
24-hour period before we would be notifying the SEC and others of the liabilities, if resolution could not be achieved through sound business discussions and practices.
· December 29, 2009 ~ Hall and Bernstein calls to
Time Warner Inc. and
Warner Bros. executives.
o Further,
I hereby complain that such recent elusive conduct involves the CEO, CFO and General Counsel at
Time Warner, Inc., even hiding and dodging professional phone calls, in fact wholly ignoring them, simply to confirm messages and communications were received and seeking responsibly to address the mass of liabilities described herein.
Instead, quite shockingly, both Hall and I were intentionally passed along to extensions whereby the
employees refused to give their names and several times just hung up on us.
Then, unidentified employees transferred us to Security personnel, personnel who would claim to be proper members of the company to receive and deliver messages to the Senior Executives regarding the
massive potential Shareholder liabilities, yet they too would offer no confirmation of the delivery of the matters to the Executives and several refused to give their proper names or oversight.
o
Security for Time Warner instead then took messages with a promise only to deliver the message and since there has been absolutely no call back from Senior Management, Counsel, Outside Counsel or an Auditor since those calls, we presume that avoidance equals concealment.
This stands as additional cause for the
SEC to investigate and find out more information regarding the failure to return these calls and address liabilities properly by either Officers, Directors, Auditors, Outside Counsel, etc. and further determine if they have reported the liabilities their offices have been notified about to Auditors and Shareholders.
·
January 06, 2010 ~ Phone conversation with Day
o Most amazingly, Wednesday Jan. 6, 2010, I
had a Direct Phone conversation with Christopher Day (“Day”) who claimed to be an
Assistant General Counsel at AOL, Inc.
The call also involved my business consultant Kevin Hall, Esq. Mr. Day was calling back after Hall and I left urgent voicemails for AOL CEO & COB Armstrong, after McKinley failed to return calls as promised. Mr. Day apparently is also
Licensing and Patent counsel for AOL Inc., yet it was unclear on whose behalf Day was acting, as we had left messages for several key officers, including Armstrong and General Counsel
Ira Parker (“Parker”) and Day refused to tell us.
o Day also
refused to tell us not only who sent him the information and gave him orders to call us back but also refused to disclose what documentation he was mysteriously and anonymously sent and referring to, making it impossible to even
confirm the documents he referenced receiving.
o This was most bizarre conduct from an alleged
Assistant General Counsel who refused to describe how, who or why the documents and business matters came to him. Yet, it appeared that Day was returning my calls to
CEO Armstrong at AOL and stated that he was a direct report to the key management persons we were attempting to reach and assuming liability for the matters.
o Efforts to avoid the liabilities involve actual dodging and hiding by Senior Executives, Officers and Directors from these matters, including but not limited to, the brand new
CEO Armstrong and
General Counsel at AOL Inc., Parker.
Upon leaving messages for Ira Parker, his assistant returned the call and stated that Parker was on vacation, could not be disturbed despite the PRIORITY situation and would return the call upon his return.
As of this date, I have received no call back from Parker; perhaps he is on extended vacation.
· January 07, 2010 ~ Letter out to
AOL Management Regarding Evasive Tactics of Management from
Shareholder Liabilities.
o Sent to: Tim Armstrong ~ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer @ AOL Inc. (
tim.armstrong@corp.aol.com ); Artie Minson ~ Chief Financial Officer @ AOL Inc. (
arthur.minson@corp.aol.com ); Jerry McKinley @ AOL Inc. (
mackinleyj@aol.com ); Ira Parker ~ General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Corporate Development @ AOL Inc (
ira.parker@corp.aol.com ); Christopher Day ~ Assistant General Counsel - Patent Litigation, Prosecution, and Licensing @ AOL Inc (
christopherday@corp.aol.com )
January 07, 2010 Letter to CEO, Armstrong at AOL Inc. @
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100110%20Kevin%20Hall%20Letter%20sent%20to%20Tim%20Armstrong%20AOL%20re%20Christopher%20Day%20calls%20to%20eib.pdf·
January 08, 2010 ~ Additional Offer made to AOL Inc. CEO Armstrong thru Assistant General Counsel Christopher Day and Summarizing Notes of Jan. 6, 2010 conversation @
January 08, 2010 Letter of Hall to Bernstein copied to Tim Armstrong, CEO at AOL Inc. and others.
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/20100108%20Letter%20to%20Tim%20Armstrong%20AOL%20Warner%20Bros.pdf·
January 2010 ~ Calls were again placed to CEO Armstrong and Day by Iviewit and Eliot Bernstein’s Counsel, Marc R. Garber, Esq. (“Garber”) of Flaster Greenberg PC (“Flaster”), Kevin Hall, Esq. and Eliot Bernstein. Counsel Garber left the messages with his personal and business phone numbers for AOL Counsel, Officers, Directors or Auditors to return his call.
Again, not even a return call from AOL to Iviewit Counsel Garber, whereby the failure of Warner Bros. et al. to return calls to our Counsel should send additional red flags to the SEC.
This failure to return calls to Counsel Garber by Warner Bros. et al. counsel and executives regarding matters as serious as this to Shareholders is unheard of, indicating further cause for the SEC to investigate all named parties herein and in the attached Exhibit 1. Investigations by the SEC should include all personal and corporate stock transactions from1999 to Present for all of these executives, including the recent corporate splits.
o
Counsel Garber of Flaster left messages with both Armstrong and Day, giving them both a chance to return the calls, as it was already established that Armstrong had direct actual and constructive receipt of correspondences via email and therefore direct knowledge of the
impending liabilities to AOL, Inc.
The calls to contact Counsel Garber were not returned as of this date, leading to the filing of this Formal Complaint against Warner Bros et al. The failure of
Warner Bros et al. to resolve the issues through sound business discussions and
licensing of the technologies with the true and proper inventors, and in fact, instead exhibiting a continued pattern attempting to conceal the liabilities from Shareholders and others with potential liabilities, through establishing materially false record of fact, while transacting volumes of individual and corporate securities, prompted this action to the SEC and others addressed herein.
The timeline and supplementary evidence herein should establish for the SEC and others addressed herein that Smith’s recent claim in his December 23, 2009 communication, already exhibited herein, claiming, “Your time-barred claims hinge almost entirely on an internal email written by
David Colter on January 15, 2002 - an email he subsequently disavowed and admitted that he had written (and improperly provided you with a copy) only as a personal favor to you” is both False and Misleading.
False and Misleading in light of the substantial evidence refuting this claim presented and exhibited herein regarding the Binding Contractual relations between Warner Bros et al. and Iviewit. Smith’s statements attempt to dismiss the liabilities as based on a single letter from a Warner Bros. employee and that the claims are somehow time barred.
The
SEC and other investigators addressed herein however are presented with a far more complete and truthful picture of the long and contractual relationship between Iviewit and
Warner Bros et al.
A relationship based on thousands of pages of
documented evidence and legal binding contracts, many with Smith center stage.
The need to
DENY the
extensively documented and
binding contractual relationship that Smith is aware of obviously is an effort to cover up why he and Warner Bros et al. have failed properly to report to
Shareholders, Regulators and Auditors these material facts.
Facts that will likely result in
Catastrophic Liabilities triggering Rescissory
Rights of Shareholders due to fraud, concealment, securities fraud and other violations of law.
The
SEC should also note that there are no time-barred claims on patent infringement, especially where the patents remain suspended by
the US Patent Office and that the matter of time for Iviewit to file actions for infringement will remain open for Twenty years from the time the patents issue and from time of filing in 1998-2001. "
Source and Full SEC Complaint Against Curtis Lu, Time Warner Inc., Warner Bros., AOL, Intel Corp., Proskauer Rose LLP, MPEG LA and More Click Here.
