New Update! (Dec. 30, 2012)—DC Bar letter essentially admits that the Washington DC legal environment is a system of patronage. DC Bar refuses to investigate any Federal Circuit attorneys involved in Leader v. Facebook. They claim that none of the Federal Circuit attorneys and judges are registered to practice law in Washington D.C.
See "DC Bar refuses to investigate attorneys in Leader v. Facebook - Unwillingness of DC attorneys to self-police may explain why Washington is broken."
|The United States of America -or- The Attorney Patronage States of America?|
UPDATE (Dec. 27, 2012)—AFI Editorial: "Will the U.S. Supreme Court support schemers or real American inventors? Facebook's case dangles on a doctored interrogatory" 18 areas of question shout for attention (also included below).
UPDATE (Dec. 23, 2012)—New AFI essay proposes two public policies that could dramatically change the tenor of America's public discourse . . . quickly (and help fix the judicial corruption exposed in Leader v. Facebook). This is a MUST READ! "Leader v. Facebook triggers grassroots public policy proposal." Click here.
(Dec. 11, 2012)— On Nov. 16, 2012 Leader Technologies filed their petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in Leader Technologies, Inc., v. Facebook Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Nov. 16, 2012).
Within days, Facebook notified the Court that they were voluntarily waiving their right to respond to Leader’s challenge. This set the stage for a judges’ conference now set for Jan. 4, 2012. See Supreme Court Docket No. 12-617.
Facebook's failure to respond demonstrates a rarely seen cockiness. When tens of billions of dollars of shareholder value are at stake, such petitions are generally taken seriously.
Judicial watchers say this lack of response by Facebook has several possible meanings:
(1) Facebook is acknowledging that they do not have a good legal argument, and are simply playing the odds, since only a small percentage of petitions are heard;
(2) Facebook has already influenced the U.S. Supreme Court justices and their clerks who are currently writing their recommendations.
If Facebook is playing the statistical odds, then that is their prerogative, however reckless that might be. Did they disclose this risk to their public shareholders? On the other hand, if Facebook has continued their backroom judicial chicanery, then justice in America may be in worse shape than we suspect. The levels of appeal in our judicial system are specifically designed to root out such cronyism.
Chief Judge Rehnquist: Petition-Pooling Cronyism
|Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP|
Photo Source: Gibson Dunn
It is public knowledge that Facebook’s Leader v. Facebook appellate attorney, Thomas Hungar of Gibson Dunn LLP, is well known to the Supreme Court justices and clerks. See former Bloomberg reporter Donna Kline's investigation into Hungar's cozy associations within the Washington D.C. appeals court machinery. The bias problem motivated former Chief Judge William Rehnquist to oppose the current process of pooling the petitions. He said that it created a "clerk activism" and injected bias against one of the parties depending upon the clerk's subjective views (or undue influence?) irrespective of the the objective matters of law.
To be clear, “clerk activism” is a form of corruption whereby the clerk skews a recommendation to a particular point of view so that otherwise busy, unsuspecting judges will accept the clerk’s recommendation as a fair and right assessment of the legal issues without digging into the matter themselves. Such corruption insults the democratic foundations of America regarding fair and unbiased treatment before the law.
Every concerned American should be watching Facebook's Thomas G. Hungar and his cronies closely for signs of U.S. Supreme Court "clerk activism" in Leader v. Facebook (since we have already witnessed such influence over the Federal Circuit Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly).
12 Steps to U.S. Supreme Court
“Clerk Activism” (Corruption)
(1) Whether the Federal Circuit violated Leader’s Fifth and 14th Amendment right to due process when it fabricated new evidence and arguments “in the secrecy of judges’ chambers.” This new evidence and argument were necessary to prevent Facebook from losing their case since the court had invalidated Facebook’s other evidence.
(2) Whether the Federal Circuit can disregard Supreme Court precedent on verb tense. The lower court did so in its interpretation of a crucial question to the inventor in 2009 (ruling that the present tense verb “is” could be applied to seven years in the past), and whether 14-year old Supreme Court rules for interpreting on-sale bar accusations could be simply waived by the Federal Circuit.
Leader has issued two press releases:
- U.S. Supreme Court petitioned to hear Leader v. Facebook appeal Nov. 30, 2012
- Prominent Americans speak out for Leader Technologies in the Leader v. Facebook U.S. Supreme Court appeal
Leader’s CEO and lead inventor, Michael McKibben, said, “We are receiving broad support across the political spectrum. The judicial cronyism is apparent. We were shocked to discover that our judges held Facebook stock and did not disclose such apparent conflicts of interest. We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will put a brake on it and make a strong statement for due process and inventor’s property rights.”
|President Obama signing the America Invents Act|
McKibben concluded, “Facebook’s day of reckoning must come. Justice demands it.”
Will the U.S. Supreme Court support schemers or real American inventors? Facebook's case dangles on a docto...