AFI Custom Search

SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box
Use this Custom Search toole.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"

Tuesday, December 11, 2012


Facebook waived their right to respond to Leader Technologies’ U.S. Supreme Court petition

AFI Insights | Contributing Writers | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Dec 11, 2012 | UPDATED Dec. 30, 2012

Seal of the United States Supreme Court 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.

"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 American -or- The Attorney Patronage States of America?
The United States of America -or- The Attorney Patronage States of America?

AFI Reader Comment from "EUREKA MOMENT on 01/02/2013:"
"AFI, you may have figured out what's wrong with Washington in addition to the Leader v. Facebook case!
Imagine a company run by 50% of any one profession and common sense says you'll see a BROKEN organization.
Think about it.
Imagine a school run by 50% plumbers.
Imagine a builder run by 50% accountants.
Imagine a non-profit run by 50% hedge fund brokers.
Imagine a water treatment plant run by 50% chemists.
Imagine a farm run by 50% nurses.
It doesn't work.
Of course these organizations would be broken and couldn't get anything done... just like Washington DC. Too many attorneys! Eureka! We aren't crazy."

18 areas of question shout for U.S. Supreme Court attention in Leader v. Facebook

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
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. Court receives X number of petitions
  2. The 9th justice distributes X/8 to each of the other eight justices
  3. One clerk for each justice reads x/8 petitions
  4. The outside influencer learns which clerk has his case via his "insider" contacts on the Court (e.g., clerk, secretary, staffer, justice, rumor mill, friend, mole, casual conversation, janitor, IT support person, etc.)
  5. The outside influencer uses insider relationships to “encourage” the clerk to write a recommendation favorable to his client; offering one or more of an array of favors, bribes, promises, quid pro quos, IOUs, paybacks, future employment, foreign bank accounts, family and friend favors, marker, connections, coercion, blackmail, etc.
  6. Clerk writes recommendation favorable to the outside influencer’s client
  7. Recommendations circulated to the justices
  8. Most justices accept the recommendation of the clerk without reading the petition
  9. Chief Justice develops his short list based mostly on the recommendations
  10. Other justices add their suggestions to the short list based on each clerk's recommendations
  11. Short list decided on Jan. 4, 2013 (the outside influencer's opponent's petition is not on the list)
  12. Justice denied; democracy insulted
Leader’s “Petition for Writ of Certiorari” was filed by Paul J. Andre of Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Fankel LLP. Mr. Andre is Managing Partner of Kramer’s Silicon Valley office in Menlo Park, CA. It is well known that the highly-respected Mr. Andre refuses to play these backroom parlor games.The petition zeroes in on two constitutional questions:

(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:
Facebook did not return phone calls prior to press time.

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
President Obama signing the America Invents Act
McKibben continued, “The fact that Facebook didn’t bother filing a response tells us that they know they have no case, and have been relying on undue influence all along. This is a perfect opportunity for the new administration to support true inventors and their investors and strike a blow to infringement, counterfeiting and judicial misconduct—activities that are so destructive to our economy. Our investors deserve their payday for the risks they took in backing the invention of what is currently called social networking—a technology now enjoyed by over a billion people. As American historian Hy Berman stated, future innovation is jeopardized if intellectual property theft by the well-connected is not stopped.”

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...

Thursday, December 6, 2012


(Leader Press Release)
American leaders from across the political spectrum urge the Supreme Court to fix the denial of constitutional rights

Columbus, Ohio (Dec. 6, 2012)—On Jan. 4, 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court will meet to decide whether to hear Leader Technologies’ appeal in Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (Supreme Court Nov. 16, 2012). See

Why should the average American care about this case? Perhaps the eminent American historian Professor Hy Berman, former political adviser to Vice President Hubert Humphrey, says it best:
“If intellectual property theft by the powerful and well-connected is not stopped, future innovation is jeopardized.” 

Prominent Americans speak out for Leader Technologies in the Leader v. Facebook U.S. Supreme Court appeal -...

Supplement: Before trial, on May 20, 2010 Leader had filed a "Motion In Limine" before the trial to exclude Facebook's new on-sale bar claim which Judge Leonard Stark allowed after the close of all fact discovery. Leader argued that it would confuse the jury. That argument has proved prophetic, and has fallen on deaf judicial ears ever since. Click here to read that May 20, 2010 motion. Click here to see a video explaining just how this confused the jury.