PATENT OFFICE REMOVES CRITICAL LEADER V. FACEBOOK DISCLOSURE ITEMS

USPTO conduct parallels the document obstruction by the IRS

Fig. 2 – On Jun. 15, 2013 Congressman Darrell Issa held up a blacked-out IRS document provided to the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform that is investigating IRS targeting of political groups. This document was in response to a requests for documents by the committee. Photo: C-SPAN.

Fig. 3 – Whited-out USPTO document provided to a third party asking for statutory judicial financial and background disclosures in Leader v. Facebook. CLICK HERE or click image to see the Aug. 7, 2013 Patent Office response.

Contributing Writers | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Updated Mar. 05, 2014 | PDF

Disarm the Powermongers – Force Facebook to return Leader's invention (what the courts failed to do)

"American society's new battleground—citizens who exploit the law's good faith expectations, and breach their public oaths, in order to neuter checks and balances and prevent accountability"

DOCUMENT AVAILABLE AT:
FBCoverup | DocStoc | GoogleDocs |
LeaderDocs |JPG Image

Fig. 1—The Facebook crowd is waging LAWFARE against the American public and the world. See the KGB logo below for more on the KGB Department of Disinformation who developed this assymetric warfare tactic, and which is still used by the FSB... and the Facebook cabal.

Justice advocates today called on Congress to step in and fix the Wild West abortions of American justice that have been exposed by the Leader v. Facebook scandal. One activist asked, "How can any innovator rely upon the trustworthiness of the U.S. Patent Office and the Justice Department, after knowing that all the judges held Facebook stock during Leader case? I am thinking it makes no sense to file my new patents until this trust issue is fixed, if it ever gets fixed. My confidence level is low right now."

Soviet KGB (Secret Police)—the masters of LAWFARE

CLICK HERE to view a document received today titled Lawfare which highlights the big picture of the Leader v. Facebook corruption. Readers should note that we have been writing about "lawfare" for some time. It was a highly successful assymetric warfare tactic of the former Soviet KGB's Department of Disinformation. Facebook's Moscow partners have evidently dusted off the training manuals and find the American Congress and Public easy marks. Click footnote 14 following for a helpful dissertation on lawfare.[14]

The bylines are even more interesting: "When lawyers, bankers and techs conspire illegally with the President to seize powers, democracy dies" and "American society’s new battleground―citizens who exploit the law’s good faith expectations, and breach their public oaths, in order to neuter checks and balances and prevent accountability." The document suggests that Congress take away Facebook technology engine and give it back to the inventor, Leader Technologies. By doing so, the Facebook crowd would lose their primary organizing tool. The illustration contains a background photo of President Obama's toast with Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison and the late Steve Jobs at a pre-election Silicon Valley dinner in February 2011. A fitting comeuppance.

ORIGINAL POST

(Aug. 15, 2013)—The U.S. Patent Office continues to dig its Leader v. Facebook ethics hole deeper. On Aug. 7 the Patent Office responded to a Jul. 9, 2013 FOIA request (CLICK HERE).[01]

For starters, the Deputy FOIA Officer, Kathryn W. Siehndel, still does not disclose her prior employment by Facebook’s attorney, White & Case LLP. Now, she refuses to provide any biographical or financial information about herself, Director David R. Kappos or any of the Leader v. Facebook patent judges.

Tellingly, Siehndel provides no required public disclosure information about Judge Stephen C. Siu, the judge assigned by Director David Kappos to oversee the 3rd Leader Technologies politically-motivated patent reexam. She uses HIPAA healthcare information protection statutes as her justification for withholding mandated judicial financial and background disclosures. The request did not ask for healthcare information, and more than 70% of the information identified was withheld.

OGE 278 Financial Disclosure Reports are required by law

Public disclosure of judicial and senior staff financial records is required by law. The Patent Office even says so in a current job posting for an administrative judge at JOBSUSA: "The Ethics in Government Act of 1978... requires senior officials in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government... The OGE 278 [Financial Disclosure Report] is available to the public." Therefore, the FOIA response breaks the law by refusing to provide those reports in a public FOIA request. In fact, not a single judicial financial report has been provided by the FOIA officer to this or any previous FOIA request.[15]

The Patent Office's disturbing FOIA conduct directly contradicts their own words in their current USAJOBS posting. A reasonable person can only assume that the Patent Office is running some sort of protection racket. Perhaps these judges become compromised once they are employed, then it becomes the FOIA counsel's and Director's jobs to protect those individuals from exposure of their misconduct. Perhaps this is where the side deals to protect cronies begins. Wink. Wink. Since they are refusing to release even one financial report, one can only conclude that they must be hiding many sins.

USPTO Lawyer Fabrication

Update Aug. 20, 2013—AFI investigators have just learned that USPTO FOIA counsel Kathryn W. Siehndel (formerly employed by Facebook's counsel White & Case LLP) made false claims in her response. She wrote "In our July, 9, 2013 telephone call to clarify this request, you indicated that you intended your requests to be limited to records related to the subject line . . . 3rd Reexam." CLICK HERE to read this statement in her letter. This claim is impossible since the requester did not email the request until 5:58PM on July 10, 2013. CLICK HERE to see that email. The Express Mail copy was not received until 8:21AM on July 12, 2013. CLICK HERE to see that delivery receipt.

Fig. 4—U.S. Patent Office gorging on Facebook burgers, since May 20, 2010, with Director David J. Kappos leading the feeding.

In fabricating her story, Ms. Siehndel appears to have become confused by the dates since the file name on the email attachment is July 8, but it was not attached and sent until July 10. She evidently believed she needed this excuse to justify her redactions. Tellingly, in her redactions one cannot find a single reference to Facebook or Microsoft. A Microsoft dictionary is among the items of alleged "prior art" that Facebook keeps putting forward (and losing on—at trial and in two previous reexams). The USPTO has almost 15,000 "likes" on Facebook.

Fig. 5—On May 20, 2010 the Patent Office issued a press release announcing its Facebook Page. Click the image to read the release by Director David J. Kappos, two months before the Leader v. Facebook trial on Jul. 19, 2010.

Rhetorical questions: Does the USPTO's daily consumption of Facebook bias their perspectives? Of course it does. Can one taste-test two burgers impartially when one has been gorging on one of the brands for years? Of course not. This is precisely why we have conflicts of interest disqualification laws; none of which were followed by the entire U.S. Patent Office.

Update Aug. 21, 2013—AFI investigators just uncovered another smoking gun. Not only did Kathryn W. Siehndel conceal FOIA information about Facebook and Director Kappos, but she failed to even provide a May 20, 2010 USPTO press release by Director David J. Kappos announcing the USPTO's new Facebook Page. Note that Kappos even uses the word "consume." (see Fig. 4). [Editorial: We must pat our volunteer investigators on the backs for this find.] CLICK HERE to read the press release.[13]

Fig. 6—David J. Kappos, USPTO Director. Kappos made over 300 Facebook posts during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings, including posting pictures and videos of himself 17 times. Source: USPTO.

Here are a few statistics about the Patent Office's Facebook Page. Patent Office Director David J. Kappos has used Facebook as a Director’s exclusive newsletter that carries his propaganda, without the possibility of objection, dissent or public comment (as AFI activists discovered yesterday when they attempted to post a comment about Leader v. Facebook, which was removed). Director Kappos has made a total of 303 Facebook entries since May 14, 2010. Kappos is mentioned by name in 40 Facebook entries (CLICK HERE). Kappos' photo appears in 15 Facebook entries. Kappos' video appears in 2 Facebook entries. Kappos ordered the 3rd Leader patent reexam on Apr. 17, 2012 (CLICK HERE).

Without public disclosure, judges and judicial employees cannot be held accountable

Without Patent Office truthfulness and impartiality, no patent is safe

Worse, Siehndel even redacted information that the judges themselves have disclosed on their LinkedIn Profiles. These judge disclosures make a mockery of Ms. Siehndel's actions, especially in light of the high-sounding call for transparency and accountability in President Obama’s Jan. 21, 2009 FOIA speech,[02] also cited in the second table below.

The USPTO Leader v. Facebook judges and Siehndel are highlighted below in yellow.

USPTO employee Disclosure Click name to view LinkedIn Profile, if available		FOIA Obstruction: The conflicted USPTO FOIA officer, Kathryn W. Siehndel, concealed these relationships that are known from the judges' own LinkedIn profiles. See more at Faces of the Facebook Corruption. (Conflict) = currently known conflict of interest
None | Partial | Full
Judge Stephen C. Siu		Concealed relationships: Microsoft (Conflict)* IBM (Conflict): Banner & Witcoff LLP New York Hospital Univ. of Maryland Hospital * Facebook stakeholder who significantly benefit from decisions favorable to Facebook.
Deputy FOIA Counsel Kathryn Siehndel		Concealed relationships: White & Case LLP (Conflict)* Wiley Rein LLP US Merit Systems Protection Board Verizon * Facebook's attorney in the Leader v. Facebook case.
Judge James R. Hughes		Concealed relationships: Howrey LLP Milbank Tweed LLP
Judge Meredith C. Petravick	Unintelligible	Previously concealed relationships: Three-term President, Patent & Trademark Office Society (Conflict). See USPTOAPANET Facebook Page. The PTO Society relies on Facebook for communication to members, and has done since May 20, 2010 when Director David Kappos wrote at http://www.facebook.com/uspto.gov (Conflict) "Welcome to the USPTO’s page on Facebook! We're excited to be launching this Director David J. Kappos. Click image to read the Facebook post. This proves unequivocally that the Patent Office is biased against Leader Technologies. forum to communicate with you and share the latest news from the USPTO. USPTO Director David J. Kappos, May 20, 2010 We know thousands of innovators, members of the intellectual property practice community, and USPTO employees are active on Facebook, so we’re pleased to be able to bring information and updates to you here. But this is also a place where you can tell us what YOU think. We encourage you to comment on our posts and tell us what you “like” and “dislike.” Check back here daily, as we will be providing regular updates including press releases and other news, details on upcoming events, speeches, updates from my blog, photos, video, fun facts and more. Just like checking your Facebook page, we hope visiting our page will become part of your daily routine." U.S. Patent Office's Facebook Page, Aug. 19, 2013. See also Fig. 4 above.
Judge Alan R. MacDonald		Concealed relationships The National Law Center at George Washington Univ. (Conflict)* * Leader Technologies' patent attorney was Judge MacDonald's law professor, Professor James P. Chandler, III, Director of the National Law Center at George Washington University. Was the relationship good or strained? Either way, it deserves disclosure and investigation.
Judge Catherine Timm		Concealed relationships: Technology Catalysts Int’l
Judge Jacqueline Bonilla		Concealed relationships: Federal Circuit law clerk, Judge Randall R. Rader (Conflict - Concealed in Conflicts Database)* Finnegan LLP * Judge Rader is concealing massive conflicts of interest among his judges involved in the Leader v. Facebook case—judges who held stock in Facebook during the proceedings. In addition, Judge Rader is a former law student of Leader's attorney, Professor James P. Chandler III, with whom Judge Rader had differences while he was chief counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch regarding the Federal Trade Secrets Act and the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
Judge Jason V. Morgan		Concealed relationships: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Conflict)* Avaltus Microsoft (Conflict)** SCII Payback Training Systems Judge Morgan's information is a jumble. Three different sets of disclosures. The statutory conflicts database is largely whited-out. Nowhere does he disclose his Microsoft conflict. *LLNL was a significant Leader R&D partner; Microsoft is a major Facebook stockholder and director of the Federal Circuit Bar Association that contains many judges holding Facebook stock ** See Judge Siu above .
Judge Mike Strauss		Concealed relationships: Verisign (Conflict)* Patent GC LLC Hunton & Williams LLP The Mitre Corporation Tracor US FAA Richmor Aviation WMHT WPTR * Verisign is a company funded by Facebook's largest investor and Zuckerberg business master, James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP.
Judge George Best		Concealed relationships: Federal Circuit law clerk, Judge Randal R. Rader (Conflict - Concealed in Conflicts Database)* East Palo Alto Community Legal Services U.C. Law School, Visiting Committee * See Judge Bonilla above.
Judge Matt Clements		Concealed relationships: Ropes & Gray LLP US Dept. of Justice (Conflict)* US FCC NY Attorney General *Justice Department was being advised by Facebook's Leader v. Facebook attorney, Cooley Godward LLP and Perkins Coie LLP, as well as President Obama's personal counsels Robert F. Bauer and Anita B. Dunn.
Judge Lynne Pettigrew		Concealed relationships: Finnegan LLP Federal Circuit, Clerk for S. Jay Plager (Conflict)* *See Judge Bonilla above.
Judge Bart A. Gertenblith		Concealed relationships: Wiley Rein LLP Federal Circuit law clerk (Conflict)* Delaware District Court (Conflict)** *See Judge Bonilla above. **The Leader v. Facebook District Court that ignore significant law to rule in Facebook's favor.
Judge Kit Crumbley		Concealed relationships: US Dept. of Justice (Conflict)* Finnegan LLP Garrett & Dunner LLP Alston & Bird LLP Fulbright & Jaworski LLP *See Judge Clement above.
Judge Stacey White		Concealed relationships: Gibson Dunn LLP (Conflict)* Wallenstein Wagner LLP * Facebook's Leader v. Facebook appeals attorney.
Judge Hyun Jung		Concealed relationships: Blank Rome LLP (Conflict) Alstom Power US Naval Reserve * Facebook Leader v. Facebook trial attorney with Cooley Godward LLP.
Judge Jennifer S. Bisk		Previously concealed relationships: Microsoft (Conflict)* Cooley Godward LLP (Conflict)** * See Judge Siu above. ** Facebook's Leader v. Facebook trial attorney with Gibson Dunn LLP and Blank Rome LLP.
Judge Gene Branch		Previously concealed relationships: Perkins Coie LLP (Conflict)* * Facebook's attorney; long time law firm of President Obama's personal White House counsels Robert F. Bauer and Anita B. Dunn.
Judge Trevor M. Jefferson		Previously concealed relationships: Latham & Watkins LLP (Conflict)* U.S. Dept. of Justice (Conflict)** * James W. Breyer, Accel Partners' law firm, Facebook's original venture capital investor and largest shareholder; currently employer of Leader v. Facebook Judge Kimberly A. Moore's husband, Matthew J. Moore. ** See Judge Clement above.

Table 1 - Analysis of requested USPTO conflicts of interest data about judges and employees that was concealed.

Here’s a summary of the requests, the USPTO responses, and the law:

A. The Request	B. The Response	C. The Law
None | Partial | Full
ITEM 1: Financial disclosures of the judges Patent judges are claiming a privilege of privacy not even claimed by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. CLICK HERE to see the U.S. Supreme Court financial diclosures at OpenSecrets.org.[03]	No. Unwarranted invasion of privacy. No public interest identified.	The "public interest" is already identified in U.S. Law. For example: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge.[04] Pres. Obama Memo., Jan. 21, 2009: "FOIA: A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency."[02] Source: USPTO. USPTO does not require a requester to give a reason for requesting agency records. 37 CFR §104.4.[05] "[the FOIA requester's] need or intended use for the documents is irrelevant." North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1989).[06] See also U.S. Justice Dept. FOIA Guide, Procedural Requirements, May 2004, fn. 58.[07]
ITEM 1: Biographies of the judges Even the U.S. Supreme Court justices make their biographies public. Patent judges are claiming privileges not granted in any jurisdiction. CLICK HERE to see Hon. Sonia Sotomayer's biographical disclosure from her Senate Confirmation Hearings (This document is set to go automatically to page 164, the first page of her written disclosure.)[08]	No. Unwarranted invasion of privacy. No public interest identified.	See above.
	19 heavily-redacted conflicts of interest database pages	The Law: Disqualification: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including by not limited to circumstances in which . . . (b) a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association served as a lawyer concerning the matter" Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges & Judicial Employees. Canon (3)(C)(1)(c).[09]
ITEM 2: USPTO employees who are members of AFLCTACAFC —the Association of Former Law Clerks and Technical Assistants for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit)	No records. Custodians of this information unknown. Identify the location of this information within the USPTO systems.	The Law: Conflicts screening is mandatory — "the Judicial Conference requires all judges to use an electronic conflicts screen system." US Judicial Conference, Dec. 10, 2009, p. 5.[10] Ms. Siehndel has specified an unfair requirement before she will comply. She says the third party must tell her where this AFLCTACAFC information is on the USPTO internal computers. We know this information exists because some of the judges admit membership in public writings. Presumably such association memberships and affiliations would be required by their conflicts of interest disclosures . . . and therefore, in the USPTO "electronic conflicts screen system" that is mandated by the Judicial Conference.
ITEM 3: Executive Communication Privilege claimed by USPTO	"... the USPTO has no records." This assertion is contrary to their Mar. 12, 2013 FOIA claim of Executive Privilege.[11]	The Law: Employees of the Executive Branch shall not lie, mislead, misrepresent, fail to disclose conflicts, or act in a biased or partial manner toward one party or the other. Standards of Ethics, 5 CFR 2635.[12]

Table 2 – Analysis of USPTO FOIA request and response: Col A—The Request, Col B—The Response, Col C—The Law.

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall

Source: Imaginarium

The Patent Office clearly cannot sustain this level of badness for very long. The rules and common sense are against them. The light of public accountability shines, and compliance is inevitable. The chorus for transparency and fairness is growing louder each day. We encourage whistle blowers to step forward.

The public must be able to trust the impartiality of the Patent Office. Without that trust, small business inventors will stop filing patents since they will not be able to rely on a full and fair hearing that is free of the undue influence of big infringers like Microsoft (for Facebook) and IBM (for Facebook), Judge Stephen C. Siu's former employers.

Deputy Counsel Kathryn W. Siehndel is evidently protecting Facebook and their cronies. Is the Patent Office and its parent, the Executive Branch, one big, ethically-challenged Humpty Dumpty?

* * *

Footnotes:

[01] USPTO FOIA Response: Kathryn W. Siehndel, FOIA Deputy Counsel, U.S. Patent Office FOIA Response re. Leader v. Facebook, F-13-00218, Aug. 7, 2013 <Patent-Office-FOIA-Response-re-Leader-v-Facebook-F-13-00218-Aug-7-2013.pdf>; See also <http://www.leader.com/docs/Patent-Office-FOIA-Response-re-Leader-v-Facebook-F-13-00218-Aug-7-2013.pdf>.

[02] Obama on Transparency: Barack Obama, The White House, Memorandum of January 21, 2009. ''Title 3 – The President, Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.'' Presidential Documents, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 15, FR Doc. E9-1773, pp. 4683-4684, Jan. 26, 2009 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/uspto/2009-01-21-President_Letter_re_FOIA_Jan-21-2009-Federal-Register-Vol-74-No-15-Jan-26-2009.pdf> ("A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.").

[03] Supreme Court Financial Disclosures: ''Supreme Court Justices' Personal Financial Disclosures Now Featured on OpenSecrets.org.'' OpenSecrets.org, Feb. 18, 2011 <http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/supreme-court-justices-personal-finances.html> (''Like members of Congress, justices serving on the highest court in the land are required by law to annually disclose information about their personal investments. Personal financial disclosure filings can provide information about potential conflicts of interest judges may have in cases that come before them.'').

[04] When judges should disqualify themselves. 28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Cornell Univ. Law School <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455>.

[05] No reasons needed for a FOIA request (USPTO): Public Information, Freedom of Information and Privacy, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce, 37 CFR Part 102, § 104.4, Rules and Regulations, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 170, Aug. 31, 2000 <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/pubfreeinf.pdf>.

[06] No reasons needed for a FOIA request (case law): North v. Walsh, 881 F. 2d 1088 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1989 at 1096 <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12171499004122825885&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36> ("In sum, North's need or intended use for the documents is irrelevant to his FOIA action; his identity as the requesting party 'has no bearing on the merits of his ... FOIA request.'").

[07] No reasons needed for a FOIA request (Justice Department): Freedom of Information Act Guide, May 2004, Procedural Requirements. U.S. Department of Justice, fn. 58 <http://www.justice.gov/oip/procereq.htm#N_58_> (''As we have repeatedly stated, Congress 'clearly intended' the FOIA 'to give any member of the public as much right to disclosure as one with a special interest [in a particular document].''')(citations omitted).

[08] Justice Sonia Sotomayor disclosed her extensive biography without claiming breach of privacy: S. Hrg. 111-503 - CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Jul. 13-16, 2009, pp. 164-335. <http://www.fbcoverup.com/com/supremecourt/S-HRG-111-503-Confirmation-Hearing-Sonia-Sotomayor-Jul-13-16-2009-CHRG-111shrg56940.pdf#page=164>.

[09] Judges and judicial employees must disclose their prior professional and personal relationships: Canon (3)(C)(1)(c). Code of Conduct for United States Judges, United States Courts. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx>; Codes of Conduct, Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees. United States Courts. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct.aspx>.

[10] Conflicts screening for judicial employees is mandatory: Written Testimony of The Honorable M. Margaret McKeown U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chair, Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States appearing on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, Hearing on: Examining the State of Judicial Recusals After Caperton v. A.T. Massey, Dec. 10, 2009, p.5. United States Courts. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.uscourts.gov/News/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/News/2009/docs/HonMMargaretMcKeownTestimony-JudicialRecusalsHrg-HouseJudSubcomCts12-10-09.pdf> ("the Judicial Conference requires all judges to use an electronic conflicts screen system.").

[11] FOIA appeal of a previous obstructed USPTO disclosure: FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Renewed Appeal To U.S. PATENT OFFICE Response, Leader v. Facebook, Apr. 2, 2013, F-13-00064, A-13-00009, p. 12 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/foia/FOIA-Renewed-Appeal-To-U-S-PATENT-OFFICE-Response-Leader-v-Facebook-Apr-2-2013.pdf#page=12>.

[12] Ethical standard for White House and Patent Office employees (Executive Branch): 5 C.F.R. Part 2635: Standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch. U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.oge.gov/Laws-and-Regulations/OGE-Regulations/5-C-F-R--Part-2635---Standards-of-ethical-conduct-for-employees-of-the-executive-branch/>.

[13] U.S. Patent Office Press Release announcing its Facebook Page, May 20, 2010: "US Patent Office Page on Facebook." USPTO Press Release, May 20, 2010 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/kappos/USPTO-Press-Release-re-FACEBOOK-PAGE-May-20-2010.pdf>; See also <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2SfG2nEsMfqa3A1YjR1OC1sM3c/edit?usp=sharing>.

[14] Lawfare—Soviet Assymetric Warfare Tactics: Bartman Christi Scott. "LAWFARE: Use of the Definition of Aggressive War by the Soviet and Russian Governments." Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Aug. 2009 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/articles/Bartman-Christi-Scott-LAWFARE-Use-of-the-Definition-of-Aggressive-War-by-the-Soviet-and-Russian-Governments-BGSU-Aug-2009.pdf>.

[15] U.S. Patent Office USAJOBS posting for an administrative patent judge requiring a Financial Disclosure Report. USAJOBS. Accessed Aug. 23, 2013 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/uspto/USAJOBS-Search-Jobs-USPTO-PTAB-2013-0014.pdf#page=5> (''The Ethics in Government Act of 1978... requires senior officials in executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government. If selected for this post ion you will be required to file a Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278). The OGE 278 is available to the public. The primary purpose of disclosure is to assist agencies in identifying potential conflicts of interest between a filer's official duties and the filer's private financial interests and affiliations.'').

Post Comments below