Tuesday, January 3, 2012

The William Morris Agency, Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and “The Evil Side of The Entertainment Industry”.

Folks if you do not know the Story of Sony allegedly involved in the Murder of Michael Jackson for his "Collection" then look deep. The Wall of Corruption in the Court System needs to be exposed and stopped.  Demand Transparency and Accountability.

I have corresponded with insiders in this case for years and discussed New York Judges that are part of the corruption and no where near part of the solution.  Knowledge is Power.  This article was sent to me today by Leonard Rowe, it is an important story.  I write on massive corruption in New York and the Tech and Media Companies such as Sony that are above the law and seem to be NOT above anything to keep their rights to Billions. Sony was also involved in the 13 Trillion Dollar iViewit Technology Theft.

The Christine Anderson Whistleblower case in New York proves years of New York courts whitewashing for elite law firms and still nothing is done.  The Iviewit case is exposing Andrew Cuomo while he was the New York Attorney General and now as the New York Governor. The Culture of Corruption in New York and well, really in the US Court System everywhere has to first be exposed, acknowledged that there is a massive problem and only then can we begin to take down this Massive Wall of Corruption.

"CORRUPTION IN OUR FEDERAL COURTS

In my previous two (2) CNN IReports we focused on the hypocrisy of Oregon’s Governor on the death penalty and how the U.S. Congress stole the right of federal review from every American Citizen.

Today I want to address problems that are inherent in the judicial system itself in terms of the failure and inability of judges to accord equal protection of the law and impartial application of the law in cases that involve African-American citizens when they come up against rich, powerful corporate entities or, as more often the case, the “State”.

I was given a copy of the book “What Really Happened to Michael Jackson-The King of Pop” that was written by Leonard Rowe.

I was intrigued by the title and of course being a big fan of Michael Jackson, I decided to embark on my own course of research to check out and confirm several of the items contained in the book. This book can be found and acquired at www.whatreallyhappenedtomj.com.

Of primary interest was that part of the book that dealt with “The Evil Side of The Entertainment Industry”. 

In this section of the book it addressed the curious case of Leonard Rowe and the Black Promoters Association (BPA) who had filed a lawsuit against The William Morris Agency, Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and others involved in the concert promotion business (Rowe Entertainment, et al v. William Morris, et al).

This case was brought by Mr. Rowe and four (4) others and involved the largest effort to date to bring about a sense of fairness in the live concert promotion side of the entertainment industry.

As I researched this case and continued to read the story in the book, I could not believe what I was reading and discovering about this situation. At the time that this lawsuit was filed and being prosecuted in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of NY it was assigned to and being heard by the Honorable Robert P. Patterson.

Mr. Rowe and his group of Black Concert Promoters across America were thought to be ably represented by Martin Gold, Ray Heslin and later by the law firm of famed Black Attorney Willie E. Gary.

The other side was represented by some of the best and most expensive law firms in America. Loeb &; Loeb, Weil, Gotcher, et al., and other blue chip, well heeled law firms.

As I understand the story, Mr. Rowe, who was the President and one of the founding members of the Black Promoters Association (BPA) had discovered, with many of his colleagues, that they were being forced to pay a 50% deposit, up front, to secure certain acts and artists to perform at concert venues across the country. This becomes more and more significant when they discovered that White concert promoters were being charged 0-10% deposit for the same artist in the same geographical venues. In addition, Black concert promoters were saddled with other extraneous contractual provisions relative to percentages of ticket sales that White concert promoters were not subjected to. Finally, Mr. Rowe and his team of colleagues discovered that despite their best efforts and no matter how much money they put up front, they were never allowed to secure a contract to tour or promote a White artist or act, ever.

But White concert promoters were not only allowed but actively encouraged to promote both white and black artists without any of the sideline contract provisions that Black concert promoters were saddled with.

Another concern that was observed was that after an artist had been cultivated and groomed by Black concert promoters, the music industry executives at The William Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency would literally preclude Black concert promoters from touring these acts, such as Lionel Richie, Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson whom Mr. Rowe had toured since the days of the Jacksons, all of a sudden, Mr. Rowe can’t book a date with Michael Jackson, Lionel Richie, Whitney Houston, Janet Jackson or any other successful cross over act that happened to have been African-American as only the White concert promoters were deemed “qualified” to promote these shows.

This disparity had plagued the Black concert promoters and the black business community for decades until they felt that they had suffered and endured enough. They decided to take action to address their concerns.

Mr. Rowe wrote letter after letter to music industry executives at talent and booking agencies, The William Morris Agency, Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and others in an effort to address and hopefully ameliorate the atrocious disparities that they had observed, endured and documented and in all of his extensive efforts, the results were futile.

Not only did the music industry executives thumb their noses, turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the very legitimate concerns that were raised, but Mr. Rowe and several of his colleagues were noticing a “tightening of the noose” with even more stringent and problematic contractual provisions being forced upon them.

New York based Attorney Martin Gold in a clear violation of state bar rules and regulations, sought out and solicited Mr. Rowe and his organization and pitched the services of his law firm, Gold, Farrell &; Marks (which then became known as Rubin, Baum and they later merged with Sonneschien, Nath &; Rosenthal) to represent the interests of the Black Promoters Association, Mr. Rowe and the four (4) other individually named plaintiffs.

Now initially this seemed like a good idea for the plaintiffs but as time went on, it became painfully clear that Martin Gold had his own agenda and the plaintiffs were merely “a means to an end” for which their interests would be wholly subverted to accomplish a windfall payday for himself at the expense of his clients whom he consciously, deliberately and intentionally threw under the bus.

Leonard Rowe who was the driving force and emotional foundation for moving the lawsuit forward, maintained daily contact with Martin Gold and his associate, Ray Heslin during all phases of the lawsuit, from drafting of the complaint, preparation of witnesses, compilation of documentation of contractual disparities and related matters.

After a lawsuit is filed against a party and they are served with the summons and complaint, they have a certain amount of time to answer or otherwise respond. In federal court that is usually 21 to 30 days depending on the particular location and the local rules of the court where the matter had been filed.

After the time to answer or respond if a party has not responded in a timely manner, the case will be resolved by way of a default judgment. In this case, however, the case went forward into the discovery phase. And this is where things got really interesting or convoluted depending on your point of view.

Martin Gold and his law firm asked Mr. Rowe and his organization to spend over two hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars (which they paid) in order to search and acquire e-mail documentation and evidence in support of their claims of discrimination and contractual disparities that they contended permeated the music industry.

This money was later determined to have been well utilized when the evidence returned documentation that the word “nigger” had been used over 232 separate times by executives at both The William Morris Agency and Creative Artists Agency (CAA).

Imagine that. “Nigger” used over 232 times as these white executives discussed entertainment luminaries such as Oprah Winfrey, Bill Cosby, Halle Berry, Will Smith, Denzel Washington, Samuel L. Jackson, Spike Lee and other noted black entertainers and concert promoters in their inter-office e-mails.

Now if the shoe was on the other foot and there was evidence discovered that denigrated and insulted the Jewish people, mountains would be moved amid the howls and cries of anti-Semitism which would be trumpeted around the country until something was done to correct that deplorable situation and the Jewish community would not rest until these businesses were closed.

Take Rick Sanchez, formally of CNN who was relieved of his on air position for merely voicing his First Amendment opinion that the news media was controlled by “Jewish People”. After his removal from CNN Mr. Sanchez has not been seen or heard of since.

But in the case of black people and the black concert promoters in particular, Judge Robert P. Patterson turned a deaf ear, blind eye, held his nose and swept the evidence under the rug as he entered an order dismissing the case, at the summary judgment level, while at the same time, intentionally ignoring the evidence that black people had been referred to as “nigger” over 232 times, by the White executives of these entertainment industry giants, in their daily business practices.

The summary judgment level in federal court is where the rubber meets the road so to speak in terms of determining whether or not enough evidence that raises disputed fact issues merit a jury trial. The law is clear. If there is a scintilla of evidence then the case must proceed to a jury trial for the determination of any and all factual issues. The standard, legally speaking is that there must not be a genuine issue of material fact remaining and that the moving party defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

And it got worse. The evidence revealed that not only was ‘nigger” used more than 232 times, there was also credible evidence that showed internal memorandums about concerts and venue dates with notations to “keep away from the blacks” and “don’t let the black concert promoters know” about this date or venue or artist. These people also kept away from black concert promoters all information relative to when certain acts and artists would be available in certain geographic venues.

There was also evidence that showed notations found in the files of these defendants that stated that certain information was not to be divulged to “the blacks” and others which clearly stated “no blacks”. No reasonable judge would ignore this mountain of documented evidence, but Judge Robert P. Patterson had no problem closing the doors of justice in the face of the black concert promoters, Mr. Rowe and the other named plaintiffs.

But all was available for the White concert promoters including meetings in Los Angeles, California and New York City where industry representatives would meet exclusively with the White concert promoters and break the country up into zones and regions where White promoters got exclusive access to all the top acts and artists which the Black concert promoters that operated in those same geographical regions were never made aware of these opportunities at all. This type of conduct constitute overt violations of the Anti Trust provisions of the Sherman Act, in fact Live Nation and AEG both emerged from these illicit, race based transactions.

And don’t forget, the White concert promoters who were not ever required to post an upfront deposit of 50% as the Black concert promoters were, without exception, compelled and required to do for each and every act or artist that they wished to promote.

These contractual practices and procedures were nothing short of deplorable. More than 2000 contracts were presented to Judge Patterson which demonstrated by way of documentation the contractual inequities between White and Black concert promoters.

But in this case, Judge Robert P. Patterson unilaterally determined that neither the law nor the evidence mattered.

Why would a judge, who is supposed to be impartial, make such a ruling in the face of a plethora of evidence that discrimination and anti-trust violations were actually being practiced on a daily basis by The William Morris Agency and Creative Artist Agency (CAA) and other defendants, unless his impartiality had been compromised?

Cases of this magnitude, especially when life altering financial decisions rest in the balance, should not be left up to those whose human sentiment are susceptible to corrupt elements.

This crucial evidence, although paid for by the plaintiffs was intentionally concealed from them by their own corrupt attorneys, Martin Gold and Ray Heslin.

It was not until Mr. Rowe discovered the evidence on the desk of Attorney Ray Heslin that this information and evidence was brought out in open court. And when that happened, Mr. Gold sought to downplay its significance by stating to the court that there was no “credible evidence” a lie that he urged upon the court in order to fleece his clients and enrich himself at his client’s expense. 

When Martin Gold received the evidence that the defendants had used the word “nigger” 232 times it was as if he and his law firm had hit the lottery. Only in this instance, Mr. Gold was able to dictate the amount of his winning. Because these rich and powerful defendants would pay any amount necessary to maintain the status quo in the entertainment industry and to insure that this evidence would never see the light of day before a jury in a court of law.

To say that Martin Gold’s actions were deplorable is the ultimate understatement because he violated the time honored principal that he as a lawyer should never betray his client’s interest to enrich himself.

However, even though all of the evidence about black people referred to as “nigger” over 232 times and the clear cut evidence of exclusionary practices that effected all Black concert promoters and the black community adversely, Judge Robert P. Patterson allowed these Jim Crow era practices to continue.

In 2012, there has still not been a black concert promoter that has ever been allowed to book and promote Barbara Streisand, U2 and Bono, Justin Beiber, Elton John, Celine Dion, the Rolling Stones, KISS, “the Boss”, Bruce Springsteen, the Dave Matthews Band, Justin Timberlake, Brittany Spears or any of the other big name White artists, groups and bands. EVER!!!

As a matter of fact, practically all Black concert promoters, because of Judge Robert P. Patterson’s race based ruling, are now either bankrupt or completely out of business.

History is replete with judges undermining the administration of justice in this country by selling out the legitimate claims of black people, who have suffered the indignity of White racist acts of misconduct, only to be thwarted at the doors of justice by another judge who thinks, feels and acts just like the people that committed the atrocious acts being complained of.

And to make matters worse, these judges line their pockets at the expense of the suffering accorded the black litigants whose cases are before them. This is the pitiful epitome of our American justice system that has gone off track and is way wrong. Judge Robert P. Patterson’s actions were both a shame and a profound disgrace.

His name should forever live in infamy much like Chief Justice Roger B. Taney whose deplorable decision in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case (which held that black people have no rights which white people are bound to respect) continues to live in the actions of judges like Robert P. Patterson. He should be brought before the Congress and impeached for his misconduct.

Until America plays by “one set of rules” there will forever be disparities in the justice system. And until there is real fairness, impartiality and an equal application of the law, America will remain a two tier society.

It is obviously evident that corruption reared its ugly head in this case and it should outrage all black people in particular as well as all fair minded and well intentioned people of whatever race, creed or color in general when justice is thwarted and the rights of litigants are subverted by a judge that didn’t care about the proper exercise of his duties, obligations and the oath of office that he swore to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States.

And let’s not forget about the lawyers Martin Gold and Ray Heslin that lied, manipulated and maligned the plaintiffs in this case. 

They too should be disbarred from the practice of law, “tarred and feathered” and then place on display for ridicule and humiliation in the town square to show others that this kind of misconduct premised on racially tinged, Jim Crow tactics of apartheid have no place in the American system of justice.

As the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently states…”injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.

By the same token, corruption found anywhere in a case before any court undermines the administration of justice in that case and everywhere else unless timely exposed and properly destroyed."

Source of Leonard Rowe,  story
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-724105

Sent to me By Leonard Rowe close friend of Michael Jackson and Legendary Concert Promoter.

The Michael Jackson case has the same elements as small town to big city corruption.  The attorneys say what they want, the courts do as they please and the pay to play system gets justice only to those who play the game right, scratch the right backs and have the most money and favors to offer.

Demand Transparency and Accountability.  Demand the Judges, Lawyers, Cops, Prosecutors not be Immune and be held accountable for violating our, YOUR constitutional rights.

Read the Leonard Rowe Book for yourself

Find out about Sony, and these same corrupt New York Bar, New York Supreme Court, New York Judges, and protected Elite Law Firms involved in iViewit Technology and the theft of a 13 Trillion Dollar patent, lives ruined, cars bombed.. ALL to steal an invention by the Elite Tech and Media companies protected by the New York Courts.  http://www.deniedpatent.com/

Monday, January 2, 2012

Don't Forget the WIPO Case I WON with Proskauer Rose Last Summer - Proskauer Rose Law Firm IS not above the Law. Expose Proskauer Rose Law Firm.

"Gregg M. Mashberg v. Crystal Cox (WIPO Case No. D2011-0677),
Allen Fagin v. Crystal Cox (WIPO Case No. D2011-0678), and
Joseph Leccese v. Crystal Cox (WIPO Case No. D2011-0679)
Filed: April 15, 2011; Decided: June 30, 2011 (Panelists: Robert A. Badgley, Richard G. Lyon [Proskauer Rose LLP case]/Andrew D.S. Lothian [other cases], and Debra J. Stanek)

Disputed domain names: , and 


proskauerlawfirm.com

The Parties

These complaints were filed by Complainant Proskauer Rose, “one of the largest law firms in the United States,” and by Allen Fagin, Joseph Leccese, and Gregg M. Mashberg. The individual complainants are partners at Proskauer (as its been known since 2000), and have been quoted in various media outlets and named “Super Lawyers” by several publications. They point out that their names appear prominently on the firm’s website and appear in firm promotional materials, and that their names appear on bills sent to clients of the firm.

Respondent Crystal Cox bills herself as an “Investigative Blogger.” According to the Complainants, she shares the views of Eliot Bernstein, who sued Proskauer in 2007 accusing it of “contribut[ing] to the Enron bankruptcy and the presidency of George W. Bush.” She uses the disputed domain names to operate sites that accuse the firm and its attorneys of fraud, theft, corruption, and perjury.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Proskauer has rights in the mark PROSKAUER through its registration and use of that mark. The domain name is confusingly similar to Proskauer’s mark, since it merely incorporates the mark and adds the descriptive term “law firm.”

Though individuals can prove trademark rights (even unregistered rights) in their names, the Panel finds that the individual attorneys here failed to do so. The Panel acknowledges that the attorneys are “highly respected, prominent lawyers,” but points out that there is no evidence that they market or provide services independently of the Proskauer firm. Rather, “it appears that the Proskauer firm is the platform on which [they] provide [their] legal services.” Furthermore, there is no evidence that the individual attorneys spent money advertising their names, or billed clients in their own names; nor were they the driving force behind, or the alter ego of, the Proskauer firm.

Cases cited by the Complainants involving trademarks for individual names did not persuade the Panel. Those cases involved a banker whose name was incorporated into the bank name, and a fashion designer who used his personal name in connection with his fashion design business. “The context of an accomplished partner at a prominent, well-known law firm is generally not analogous.”

For those reasons, the Panel finds that the individual attorneys did not have trademark rights in their names sufficient to support a UDRP proceeding.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

“A majority of this Panel maintains that the use of the Domain Name [] here as a genuine ‘gripe site’ vests Respondent with a legitimate interest,” namely, making a fair use of the disputed domain. Though the concept of free speech is not enumerated as a legitimate interest under the Policy, the Panel recognizes that it qualifies as such.

Ultimately, the Panel declines to address these case squarely:

The Panel unanimously believes that this is not a clear case of cyber squatting which the Policy was designed to address. Rather, this looks like a protracted and contentious dispute among numerous parties, several of whom are not before the Panel in this proceeding, that has spilled into the arena of Internet domain names. All parties are free to pursue their respective positions and interests in other fora better suited to consider evidence and grant appropriate relief. As set forth in his concurring opinion, the Panel member who disagrees with the majority’s reasoning on the legitimacy of criticism sites joins the Panel in finding this dispute better suited for the national courts and in the circumstances of this case not appropriate for resolution under the Policy.

In light of the Panel’s decision on the second prong, it declines to consider the third prong.

Decision

The complaint is denied.

Commentary

Lawyers are always being told that they are their own “brand”; I guess this Panel doesn’t read the same marketing books I do. So what can a lawyer do to establish trademark rights in an individual name (short of becoming a named partner)?

For the Panel to find in favor of Proskauer, it would have to get around the free speech/fair use issue. Of course, free speech is not unlimited; defamatory statements are not protected by the Constitution. But the limited scope of the UDRP does not allow the Panel to make the fact-intensive determination of whether the Respondent’s statements are defamatory. Though it was likely worth filing these complaints and taking a shot, Proskauer may need a court to find defamation in order to recover the domains. Otherwise, the gripe sites they point to will likely be considered fair uses."



Source of Crystal Cox Kicks Proskauer Rose's Ass Post
http://the-domain-blog.com/2011/07/08/proskauer-hosed/ 

Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, Proskauer Rose - Murdoch Media Scandal - Bertram Abrams Proskauer Rose

Murdoch Media Scandal - the controlling of Media is protected by Proskauer Rose Law Firm. Expose Proskauer Rose Law Firm as they protect corruption, and aid in making victims into criminals. Do NOT believe the jaded perception of Fox News, do your Homework.  Blogs are the Real News... Dig Deep.

http://www.democracynow.org/tags/murdoch_media_scandal

Rupert Murdoch was on this Bio and then Seemed to Disappear
http://www.proskauer.com/professionals/bertram-abrams/

Search Engines say this

Bertram A Abrams | Professionals | Proskauer - Proskauer Rose LLP

www.proskauer.com/professionals/bertram-abrams/
Acted as counsel to Rupert Murdoch in his acquisition of five television stations from Metromedia for $1.2 billion, and represented ... 2011 Proskauer Rose LLP. 


http://www.proskauer.com/news/press-releases/june-15-2000/

Proskauer Rose, Fox News ~ Guess that's why Fox News wants to discredit Blogger Crystal Cox who has been Exposing Proskauer Rose Crime for Years. 

Links to Proskauer Rose Corruption





Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Proskauer Rose has been hit with a $10 million gender discrimination suit by its former chief financial officer, Elly Rosenthal

"Proskauer Rose has been hit with a $10 million gender discrimination suit by its former chief financial officer, Elly Rosenthal, who alleges the firm marginalized her and eventually fired her after she took leave for breast cancer treatment (See Complaint).

In Rosenthal v. Proskauer Rose, 111343-11, filed yesterday in Manhattan Supreme Court, Ms. Rosenthal, 57, accuses the firm, which has more 650 attorneys in 12 offices, of demoting her after her medical leave, denying her pay increases and eventually replacing her with a man who was less qualified, despite her 16 years of excellent performance."

Source of Post
http://www.newyorklawjournal.com/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1202517979128&slreturn=1

Sunday, July 3, 2011

Joseph M. Leccese, Proskauer Rose Law Firm - Joseph Leccese Proskauer Rose Lawyer - Proskauer Rose LLP - Joe Leccese


Joseph Leccese Bio Information.

Joseph M. Leccese is the Chairman of Proskauer Rose Law Firm. and co-head of the Sports Law Group.
Why was Joseph Leccese chosen to be Chairman of Proskauer Rose Law Firm? Got a tip on Chairman of Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Joseph Leccese ( Joe Leccese) ~ Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose is said  have had a broad-based corporate practice with particular emphasis on the representation of professional sports leagues, teams and owners; college conferences; and financial institutions that provide capital to the broad array of transactions that occur in the sports industry.

So how does this Qualify Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose to be the Chairman of Proskauer Rose Law Firm, a multi-Billion Dollar Law Firm?

Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Joseph Leccese  sports experience is said to includes numerous matters for the National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, Major League Soccer, PAC-12 Conference, ATP Tour and WTA Tour, as well as for a number of individual sports teams, owners and sports-related entities. Some more to Qualify Proskauer Rose Law FirmJoseph Leccese to be Chairman of Proskauer Rose Law Firm ?  What is the REAL Chairman of Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Joseph Leccese Story?

It is said that Joseph Leccese has handled a number of matters relating to the acquisition, financing, operation and equity funding of professional sports teams, including the acquisition of the Washington Nationals for Theodore N. Lerner, the New York Jets for Robert Wood Johnson IV and the Philadelphia Eagles for Jeffrey R. Lurie. Is this what qualifies Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose to be Chairman of Proskauer Rose Law Firm?

Joseph Leccese know of Proskauer Rose's involvement in a 13 Trillion Dollar Technology Theft and Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose LLP Does NOTHING to make this right in ANY way.

Joseph Leccese wanted so badly to STOP you from knowing the Truth about Proskauer Rose Law Firm being involved in Rico Crimes, Massive Shareholder Fraud, Technology Theft, and to cover up the behavior of Proskauer Rose Law Firm that Joseph Leccese sent one of his tip Proskauer Rose Attorneys to defame me, harass me, and try and take millions upon million of dollars of my Intellectual Property to take over the search for the Proskauer Rose name and for Joseph Leccese" - so Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose spent big money and lots of time DEFAMING me to "attempt" to take my Domain Name Joseph Leccese .com as well as other Proskauer Rose Sites that I have.

Joseph Leccese lost that Battle.  Joseph Leccese now must face the facts that there are over 1200 documents online proving the GUILT of Proskauer Rose Attorneys in the Iviewit Technology Theft.  And now Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose Law Firm is involved in this RICO Crime, Massive Shareholder Fraud, SEC Complaint, Federal RICO Lawsuit, DOJ Complaint, FBI Complaint and Patent Theft.

Joseph M. Leccese, a New York, New York (NY) Lawyer, Attorney - Intellectual Property, Mergers & Acquisitions, Sports.

Joseph Leccese  has been the lead negotiator in multiple stadium and arena deals and financings, including in connection with the facilities developed by the Philadelphia Eagles, New York Jets, New Jersey Devils and Orlando Magic, as well as the arena developed by the NBA in Charlotte. Does that Joseph Leccese experience giv Joseph Leccese what is needed to be the Proskauer Rose Chairman.

Joseph Leccese is said to have represented lenders in connection with a number of facilities-related financings, including the financing for Citi Field. Does that Joseph Leccese experience giv Joseph Leccese what is needed to be the Proskauer Rose Chairman.

Joseph Leccese is said to have handled a variety of joint ventures and other innovative sports transactions, including the formation of NBA China, the WNBA, the NBA Development League and Legends Hospitality, a joint venture among affiliates of the Dallas Cowboys, the New York Yankees and Goldman Sachs. Does that Joseph Leccese experience giv Joseph Leccese what is needed to be the Proskauer Rose Chairman.

Joseph Leccese is said to have broad experience advising on national and international television contracts with major telecasters; the exploitation of Internet, new media and technology rights; and a variety of matters relating to the exploitation of stadia and arenas, including naming rights, seat licenses and related arrangements.

I own ProskauerSucks.com and Proskauer Rose Sucks.com and it seems to me that Proskauer Rose has paid google to silence me, for those blogs will NOT update, not since January.  As it is Proskauer Rose pays for 50% of the top search for Proskauer Rose, thing is I own alot of the names in the top search for Proskauer Rose and all their money and bullying has yet to STOP that.

I will continue to examine why those sites won't update, and google may be named in my $450 Million Dollar Proskauer Rose Lawsuit, should a non-Corrupt Court look at my Case.

Got a tip on Proskauer Rose Joseph Leccese ? Email your Joseph Leccese tip to me at Crystal@CrystalCox.com

Saturday, July 2, 2011

Proskauer Rose Law Firm in another Scandal, Anthony Oncidi, Proskauer Rose Ascent Media Group - CaN YOU say RICO ?

Anthony Oncidi  - Proskauer Rose Law Firm

"Former Media Executive Sues Proskauer for Malpractice Over Arbitration

Posted by Brian Baxter
William Frazee, a former vice president at Ascent Media Group, is suing Proskauer Rose and Los Angeles-based partner Anthony Oncidi for allegedly mishandling arbitration matters and having a conflict of interest when representing him, according to sibling publication The National Law Journal.

The civil suit by Frazee was filed against Proskauer and Oncidi, the head of the firm's labor and employment group in L.A., on January 4 in Los Angeles County superior court. The NLJ reports Frazee is seeking more than $500,000 in compensatory damages plus punitive damages.

According to the complaint, Frazee previously held management positions at MGM Studios, United Artists, and Dick Clark Productions. The NLJ reports Frazee worked for Ascent when two women filed separate complaints against him and the company, one of which was a sexual harassment claim that went to arbitration. (Courthouse News has more background on the dispute.)

After settling the disputes with the two women, Ascent claimed in arbitration proceedings that Frazee's conduct was outside the scope of his employment, the NLJ reports, making him liable for $500,000 in attorney's fees and other settlement payments by Ascent.

Frazee claims Proskauer never informed him of any potential fee liability and claims the firm was conflicted in representing both him and Ascent, according to The NLJ.

In an e-mailed statement to The NLJ, Proskauer said Frazee's suit "arises from ongoing litigation between parties and is clearly intended as a tactic in that dispute."

Samuel Smith of Beverly Hills-based SJS Counsel is representing Frazee. Smith told The NLJ that his client is currently unemployed.

The suit against Proskauer comes two weeks after the former CEO of another major entertainment company, James Wiatt of the William Morris Agency (now called William Morris Endeavor after a 2009 merger), sued Winston &; Strawn over the actions of former partner Jonathan Bristol, who was charged by the U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC with fraud on December 16."

Source of Proskauer Rose Post
http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdaily/2011/01/proskauer-frazee.html

William Frazee, a former vice president at Ascent Media Group, is suing Proskauer Rose

Web Stats, Fisher and Phillips

Atlanta, Georgia, United States

IP Address:

Fisher & Phillips. Llp (65.210.158.162) [Label IP Address]

Search Referral:

www.google.com — proskauer rose #7

Visit Page: