AFI Custom Search

To ensure you are reading the latest post, click the logo above.
SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box
Use this Custom Search toole.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"

Tuesday, January 29, 2013


Judges go to jail for far less serious misconduct; Facebook users should pay Leader fees voluntarily; its the right thing to do since Facebook stole the technology

Contributing Writers | Opinion | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | Jan. 29, 2013, Updated Feb. 04, 2013 | PDF

Facebook Gestapo censorship of Leader v. Facebook "private" conversations verified

Reports of Facebook censorship of Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal reporting
Fig. 1—So much for the Facebook "Open" Graph. Open for who? The Facebook secret police? Lessons from the KGB's "Top 10 lessons learned to undermine a free market?" A handbook from Yuri Milner, Facebook's "Man in Moscow" (and 2nd largest shareholder)?

Remember, Milner worked for the Russian Bank Menatep, caught laundering $10 billion in Russian mob money, and diverting almost $5 billion in IMF and World Bank funds. He did this in the years preceding his multi-billion investments in Facebook with oligarch Alisher Asmanov (and Goldman Sachs-Moscow, recipient of $X in US taxpayer bailout funds).

Feb. 11, 2013 Update)—AFI received troubling reports this weekend that Facebook is censoring users who are working to publicize the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. In one report Facebook PREVENTED friend-ing between a user and the Chief of Staff of the House of Representatives. In this report, the message from Facebook was essentially that the user was limited to friend-ing friends (and not politicians). This form of censorship, if true (the news source is credible), is against our most fundamental Freedom of Speech rights embodied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But of course, such conduct is consistent with the massive abuse of rights that we are seeing from the federal courts in Leader v. Facebook. Here's the comment. We suggest that readers forward this link to decision influencers in their networks.

 (Feb. 13, 2013 12:18 PM EST): AFI is receiving more verified reports of Facebook Gestapo censorship of "private" conversations among Facebook users whenever the topic turns to the growing Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. We will not publish the exact contents to preserve the anonymity of the whistle blowers. Of course, readers should know that the "FB Gestapo" is able to search on this simple key phrase and find EVERY conversation on the planet that has used this phrase, and then start targeting those individuals for censorship. This is true for any data in Facebook, including your so-called "private" conversations. Private in Facebook-speak means the exact opposite. Any advertiser can purchase it, and any Facebook insider can search it. Some euphemistically call this activity "data mining."

Facebook attorney explaining
 the Facebook user license in
which you gave up your rights.

Fenwick & West LLP;
Cooley Godward LLP;
Gibson Dunn LLP;
White & Case LLP;
The Federal Circuit Bar Assoc;
DC Bar Assoc;
US Supreme Court;
US Supreme Court clerks;
US  Federal Circuit Clerk; and 
US Federal Circuit
through secret advocacy.

And of course, this immoral conduct is perfectly "legal." Why you ask? Because Facebook's attorneys wrote a deceptive user license agreement full of enough twists and turns to make magician Harry Houdini blush. You agreed to hand over all your data to Facebook as the price you paid to get "free" use of the platform, which of course, is stolen from Leader Technologies. More immorality, the theft is illegal.

Immorality  Illegality. Why do the Facebook users permit such appalling abuse of rights? What does this say about the state of morals in America? By the way, Facebook's license does say that you "own" your data . . . until you share it, then you give it up to them forever. So, since a social network is about sharing, voile, you can't take back anything you've shared with even one other person. Therefore, you've given up everything. Very clever, eh?

(Feb. 11, 2013 16:38 PM EST): We have just received a report that Facebook is censoring links to the page for "Lawless America" which is investigating judicial corruption in America. This blogger has been conversing in private chat mode with Lawless America before being blocked; first sporadically, now permanently. So much for the "private" in private chat. We encourage our readers to follow Lawless America and inform them about the growing Leader v. Facebook judicial and Patent Office corruption scandal.

"A favorite tactic of wrongdoing is misdirection. Misdirection creates questions and doubt continuously. Your target will then spend all their time defending against the shadows you create." —Disinformation Expert

Patent Office Cover-up in Leader v. Facebook

Judicial Facebook Love-Fest?
We know at least two of the three Federal Circuit judges in Leader v. Facebook hold Facebook stock. How many judges and staff (and their families) at the U.S. Patent Office also hold Facebook stock? Is American jurisprudence a veritable Facebook Love-Fest? Whose driving this corruption of previously venerable American institutions? Proof of cover-up here.
"You may not work on any matter where . . . you or your relatives within the third degree . . . could be substantially affected by the matter's outcome." Code of Conduct 3F(2) (p. 10).
Like Facebook stock appreciation?!

(Feb. 8, 2013 Update)—The specter of judicial bribery is spreading to the U.S. Patent Office. AFI has just received new documents clearly showing a cover-up. These documents need no editorial comment. They speak for themselves. Facebook appears to be railroading some sort of "re-examination" proceeding through their paid staff (and paid administrative judges?) at the USPTO? Leader has already won these arguments at trial and in two reexaminations.

Click here to read the USPTO Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Leader v. Facebook cover-up documents: GoogleDocs

The three administrative judges who approved what is in effect a FOURTH review of the same worn out, losing Facebook prior art arguments are:

  1. Judge Allen R. MacDonald
  2. Judge Stephen C. Siu
  3. Judge Meredith C. Petravick

Should these judges join the Wall of Shame? We invite readers to investigate these judges and their staffs, whose names are identified on the blanked-out FOIA documents.


Leader v. Facebook judicial misconduct WALL OF SHAME

(Jan. 29, 2013)—Judicial bribery appears to be all the rage in Washington these days. Therefore, should it be any surprise that Mark Zuckerberg, the one proven guilty of infringing Leader Technologies' patent on 11 of 11 counts, would use attorneys who have no qualms about bribing federal judges? Their partners in Moscow certainly know how it works. It's a strategic warfare tactic they developed called "lawfare" to corrupt the American judicial system. Interesting question.

Facebook's main law firms involved in Leader v. Facebook are Gibson Dunn LLP, Cooley Godward LLP and White & Case LLP, not to mention that Facebook's inside counsel Samuel O'Rourke worked previously for Heidi Keefe and Mark Weinstein at White & Case. The other three attorneys that play prominently in this case are Gibson Dunn's Thomas Hungar (also Microsoft's attorney), Cooley's Jeffrey Norberg and Michael Rhodes. Directing the whole effort is Facebook's attorney Theodore Ullyot who made out like a bandit in the Facebook IPO. Oh by the way, did we talk about the cozy relationship between these lawyers and The Federal Circuit Bar Association . . . and Supreme Court clerks?

Bribery of judges by commerce and attorneysJudicial bribery and payoffs in Leader v. Facebook seem all but certain considering the breadth and depth of the collective misconduct. It seems that these judges would have had no other motive than money to hand Facebook its dubious victory based on lies and turning blind eyes. They risked life appointments. See Wall of Shame below. If they have risked their jobs for Facebook, there must be an awfully big reward waiting somewhere. Students of Facebook speculate that there must be hundreds if not thousands of these accounts somewhere. They appear to have bought a lot of silence in the Caymans, Dubai, Bermuda, Moscow, Singapore, Hong Kong? The deeper this scandal gets, the more the mind wanders. You'll have to decide for yourself.

Where might the funds be parked?

It is public knowledge that Moscow-based DST (aka Digital Sky, aka, aka Yuri Milner) has a full time former Goldman Sachs executive named Alexander Tamas living in Dubai. Tamas moved from Goldman Sachs to DST in London just months before Goldman Sachs received approximately $16 billion in taxpayer bailout funds, managed by President Obama's bailout appointee, Lawrence H. "Larry" Summers. Milner and Facebook COO Sheryl K. Sanders are protégés of Summers from his World Bank days in the early 1990's. Within about six months of the bailout, some $3 billion flowed in from Milner/DST and others overseas to purchase Facebook insider stock. Zuckerberg's former speech writer says in Boy Kings that the Facebook employees were strongly encouraged to sell, then they were effectively muzzled (Katherine Losse, 2012: "no one asked if the Russian's money was clean . . . no one wanted or was allowed to know") when they questioned these dubious Russian transactions. American investors were locked out. All coincidences, of course.

Judges who accept bribes and givers of bribes should go to jail. For example, former attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield are serving sentences for corruption and racketeering after Minor backed loans to the judges in exchange for favorable court rulings. See “Corrupt Mississippi Judges and Former-Attorney who Bribed them Head Back to Prison. Bad Lawyer, Jun. 14, 2011.

Facebook's offer to the Leader v. Facebook judges: Stock value appreciation in exchange for a favorable ruling?

Given the way in which the Federal Circuit decisions were timed to Facebook-friendly events, like the beginning of their IPO road show, and a national Fox Business interview with Leader's Michael McKibben, the Court-Facebook love-fest is apparent. Of course, they say its all coincidence. Yeh, right.

Promises of Facebook stock appreciation from the IPO in exchange for a favorable Leader v. Facebook ruling would be a strong motive for corruption, especially if you are arrogant enough to think no one can touch you. How is that different from Paul Minor loaning judges money to pay their debts? Did these Leader v. Facebook judges seriously think we would not notice?

If one is tempted to doubt how widespread judicial corruption is, read this from the U.S. Department of Justice’s website:

"Bribery is endemic to our courts, because those persons vested with authority to prosecute judicial bribery are indifferent. They fail to do their job." OpenDOJ

Wall of Shame

In addition to public outrage and shaming (which is growing in popularity given the lack of self-policing in the legal community), the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, as well as other committees, like the House Committee on Government Reform, are the primary legislative checks and balances.

David Luban writes “Equality before the law, like universal suffrage, holds a privileged place in our political system, and to deny equality before the law delegitimizes that system. . . . when these rights are denied, the expectation that the affronted parties should continue to respect the political system . . . that they should continue to treat it as a legitimate political system--has no basis.” Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study, 251, 264-66 n.12 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1988).

Leader v. Facebook—the most egregious example of judicial corruption ever? A veritable Facebook love-fest.

We have before us in Leader v. Facebook perhaps the most egregious example of judicial corruption in the history of American jurisprudence.

Hacker Way or Bust - Leader v. Facebook judges sucking Facebook's thumb; Judge Leonard P. Stark, Judge Alan D. Lourie, Judge Kimberly A. Moore, Judge Evan J. Wallach, Judge Randall R. Rader, Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly
The Federal Courts:
Hacker Way or Bust

We have a federal district court judge Leonard P. Stark permitting Facebook to add significant new claims (too late; at least by the Rules) while denying Leader time to prepare their defenses to those new claims. We have this same Judge Stark who ignored two of his own key jury instructions, and ignored the jury’s own words to him that they made their on-sale bar decision against Leader without evidence.

This same judge effectively practiced bait-and-switch by first instructing Leader's attorneys to answer Interrogatory No. 9 only in the 2009 present tense, but then allowed the jury to interpret it in the past tense anyway. In short, he handed Facebook attorneys the exact confusing answer they needed to confuse the jury. Did we mention that he permitted Facebook to show the jury a heavily doctored Interrogatory No. 9 (60% was blanked out) at trial and denied Leader's request to show the un-doctored version?

We have a Federal Circuit panel of three judges (Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore, Evan J. Wallach, along with Randall R. Rader and Clerk Jan Horbaly) who did not disqualify themselves since some of them held stock in Facebook while Facebook went public in the largest tech IPO in US history—during the Leader v. Facebook appeal. We have this same panel ignoring the English definition of "is" and legal applications of verb tense, and utterly ignoring their own tests of the evidence.

Did we mention that the Federal Circuit's own opinion debunked all of Facebook's evidence by the time it was all said and done. Even they could not uphold Facebook's fabricated "evidence."

Not to be deterred from the Facebook love-fest, did we mention that the Federal Circuit panel then fabricated whole new arguments for Facebook in secret after Facebook’s arguments fell apart?

Did we mention that the panel did not give Leader a chance to challenge these new arguments?

Did we mention that the clerk's staffer Valerie White said the judges could not have seen, much less considered the arguments in a friend of the court motion supporting Leader before it was denied by her boss, Clerk of Court Horbaly? Did we mention this same clerk is tight with Facebook's chief appeals lawyer Thomas G. Hungar of Gibson Dunn LLP who also represents one of Facebook's largest shareholders, Microsoft?

Did we mention that the courts ignored damning new evidence that Mark Zuckerberg had withheld 28 hard drives from Leader before the trial? New testimony in another case indicates that these hard drives might prove that Zuckerberg had Leader's actual source code—that's potentially criminal and would have raised the stakes in the trial dramatically.

Did we mention that The Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Clerk of Courts collaborated to file a motion absolving the judges of their conflicts of interest, only to withdraw it secretly once their scheme was exposed? This motion was chock full of easily provable false and misleading statements.

animated right arrowFollow the links on the right sidebar of
this article to study the facts for yourself.

Several grassroots movements are developing to press this case until justice is served. They are drafting a set of criteria for what qualities a judge to be on the Wall of Shame:

  1. Their corruption is based on publicly available facts.
  2. They have ignored well-settled law.
  3. They have a conflict of interest that breaches the Code of Conduct for federal judges.
  4. They have ignored material new evidence.
  5. They have made false statements.
  6. They have violated Fifth and 14th Amendment due process

The Judicial Corruption WALL OF SHAME

The following Leader v. Facebook judges qualify for the Judicial Corruption Wall of Shame. What would motivate such a diverse group of judges with "for life" appointments from marching lockstep off the ethical cliff, unless bribed or coerced by promises of big money . . . on the side of course . . . wink, wink?

Judicial Corruption Wall of Shame
Judge Alan D. Lourie Judge Kimberly A. Moore Judge Evan J. Wallach Judge Randall R. Rader Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly Judge Leonard P. Stark
Alan D. Lourie Kimberly A. Moore Evan J. Wallach Randall R. Rader Jan Horbaly Leonard P. Stark
Shame Checklist Subject: Judicial Conduct in Leader v. Facebook*
1. checkbox Ignored well-accepted precedent tests
Group One v. Hallmark Cards, Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc.
2. checkbox Failed to disclose Facebook stock holdings
Breach: Code of Conduct for United States Judges
3. checkbox Ignored evidence that Zuckerberg concealed 28 hard drives
Breach: Rules of Civil Procedure
4. checkbox Made multiple knowingly false statements in judicial orders
Breach: Rules of Profession Conduct
5. checkbox Fabricated new appeals arguments for Facebook in secret
5th & 14th Amendment
6. checkbox Failed to let Leader challenge the new arguments
Breach: 5th & 14th Amendment
7. checkbox Censored docket and avoided public exposure of misconduct
Breach: Rules of Civil Procedure
8. checkbox Ignored English language use of verb tense
Breach: The Dictionary Act, Carr v. US
9. checkbox Ignored own court orders re. interrogatories & jury instructions
Breach: Rules of Civil Procedure

*Ref: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
No. 12-617 (U.S. Nov. 16, 2012).

Should Facebook users voluntarily pay user license fees to Leader in a citizens' movement to do the right thing since the courts have forsaken our laws and respect for property rights?

Interesting solution.

Car theft

Open Question to Facebook Users: Voluntarily pay Leader a license fee for your use of their technology that Facebook has stolen?

What do you say Facebook users? If someone gave you the keys to a car to use freely, then told you six months later that the car was stolen, would you keep using the car? At the very least, wouldn't you want to pay the car owner for the privilege of continued use of his car?

* * *


  1. Comment by: Facebook user feeling guilty

    Tell me where to send my license fee to Leader. If these "boy king" bastards at Facebook aren't going to do the right thing, then us users will just have to do it for them.

  2. Comment by: Henry

    Sounds like these judges were on crack. I have a close relative who is an addict. He is a pathological liar. Sounds like these judges don't know how to be truthful, they only pretend to be honest.

  3. Comment by: Platypus

    I like this shame idea. I saw a CNN interview with some comedian who says he thinks that shame may be the new way to "encourage" people to do the right thing. People who just keep doing the wrong things and have no moral compass. To bad we have to use this tactic with judges. They are supposed to be smart and above this. These judges jumped in the Facebook minivan on the way to Woodstock. I need to go shower. Yuck.

  4. Comment by: Judicial Corruption

    Attorneys pretend to tell the truth, and judges pretend to police them. Then they sue for libel to maintain the charade if exposed. This system of endemic corruption must be fixed. It is totally, completely and utterly out of hand.

  5. Comment by: Law Blogger

    These libel lawsuits by judges should be allowed to run their course. It's a two-edged sword for a crooked judge. He or she may be counting on an early settlement to maintain his or her ruse. However, if the allegations are true, then discovery should unearth the truth. I would love to see the phone records and meeting logs of these judges' contacts with Facebook attorneys, not to mention their bank accounts and Homeland Security's reports on their foreign holdings and those of their family members. We can already see that Judges Moore and Lourie (and probably others, not to mention their families) had Facebook stock during the Leader case. That alone is enough to impeach IMHO, especially since they were asked to disclose their holdings and other conflicts. It is inconceivable that no one in the Federal Circuit, or their families, did not invest in the Facebook IPO. Proving just one who invested will invalidated the En Banc denial and the entire Federal Circuit opinion in this case.

  6. Comment by: AFJ Reader

    According to ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE information about Judge Evan J. Wallach:

    "From 1987-1988 he worked as General Counsel and Public Policy Advisor to Senator Harry Reid."[1]

    Harry Reid seems to have no problems with duplicity and lining one's family's pockets, as was reported by AFI in a "Postscript AFI Editorial."[2]

    Harry Reid's son-in-law Steven G Barringer lobbied for a Henderson, Nev. development that Reid grandfathered into the 2009 Omnibus Act. Harry Reid's son Josh is now the city attorney for Henderson.

    Did Judge Wallach learn his craft all too well from the Senate Majority leader? Is that why he is so sure the Senate Judiciary Committee won't investigate him?



  7. Comment by: Peanuts

    It just struck me while the Federal Circuit is sick. It was the creation in 1982 by, of and for attorneys. It's purpose seemed like a good idea at the time, namely to populate it with judges who know patents. However, what it lacked was any semblance of accountability other than to itself. That was a prescription for corruption. The founders implemented a system of checks and balances. The attorneys who framed the Federal Circuit's charter built a self-serving entity that is now rife with corruption, lack of accountability and no checks and balances??? Worse, many of the new appointees don't even know patents, like Judge Evan J. Wallach on the Leader v. Facebook panel.

  8. Comments by: Lucy

    Right on Peanuts! When you consider that the Federal Circuit handles ALL U.S. Patent Office appeals, you see a corrupt and scandalously unaccountable TRIFECTA among: (1) corrupt attorneys, (2) corrupt patent office directors and examiners, and (3) a corrupt patent appeals court. Its a formula for friggin disaster. We are seeing that disaster in living color in the Leader v. Facebook scandal. Speaking of corrupt trifectas, what's the status of Facebook's USPTO-Director-ordered 3rd reexam BTW?

    Anybody know how Fenwick & West's Christopher P. King aka Christopher-Charles King is holding up in their shell game at the patent office having not disclosed Leader's patents as prior art in the Facebook patent family? LOL

  9. Comment by: Well Duhhhh

    You guys should be running Congress. You're doing a better job at figuring out what's wrong than they have been able to!!!!! You must actually solve problems and produce results for a living!

  10. Comment by: Must look stupid

    The Federal Circuit BARFED AND LAUGHED ALL OVER these guidelines on judicial disqualification from the FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER:

    "even the smallest financial interest (e.g., ownership
    of a single share of stock) requires disqualification. Under § 455(c), it is a judge’s duty to keep abreast of all of his or her financial interests."$file/judicialdq.pdf

    Do ya think Judges Moore and Lourie had at least a "single" share in Facebook between their five or ten funds. Do you think it is possible that NONE of the Federal Circuit judges purchased stock in Facebook during the IPO? Did ANY of them disclose and disqualify? Nope. This is outrageous conduct from people we are supposed to trust.

  11. Comment by: Law Blogger

    Judge Evan J. Wallach speaks with forked tongue. He denied Leader Technologies their rights and their property, and abused the Code of Conduct for United States Judges in Leader v. Facebook. HOWEVER, in 2005 he self-righteously called for accountability when he criticized the U.S. military and Bush Administration regarding the mistreatment of prisoners in Abu Graib. He wrote:

    “Our values are non-negotiable for members of our profession. They are what a professional military force represents to the world. Those who do battle with monsters must take care that they do not thereby become a monster. Always remember that when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back into you . . . The abyss is gazing back at us.” Pages 537, 538, 621.

    “In the civilian context, where government officials operate under the color of law have entered into an agreement to violate federal law, all persons who joined in that agreement are liable for all reasonably foreseeable violations of law which were done in its furtherance.” Pages 618-619.

    OK Judge Wallach, your LEADER V. FACEBOOK MONSTERS are staring at you. Are you going to do the right thing, or are you just another moral hypocrite who likes to hear himself pontificate?

    I suspect the later. Prove me wrong.


    Wallach, E. J. “The Logical Nexus Between the Decision to Deny Application of the Third Geneva Convention to the Taliban and al Qaeda and the Mistreatment of Prisoners in Abu Ghraib.” CASE WESTERN RESERVE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2004, VOL 36; NUMB 2/3, pages 541-638.

  12. So, we were on Facebook this Saturday past (2/2/13), following Lawless America (great blog, by the way). During a conversation with other followers of the blog I posted a brief synopsis of Leader Technologies’ fight. I left for a bit and came back to check on any responses, and my comment was gone. I inquired as to its disappearance, but they had neither knowledge nor control over any editing.


    They had an open phone line, that night, for callers to call in and give their stories of any legal problems or corruption that they had either encountered, or to complain about lawyers, judges, and the like. Anyhow, I started to repost my thoughts about our case. I wanted to tell them about Facebook and how they corrupted the judicial process (apparently Facebook doesn't like truths being spread about them and their true origins). I was promptly greeted with a spam warning, threatening to block me or shut my Facebook account down if I didn’t acknowledge or agree to stop. Fearing a snooping Trojan, I quickly logged out without acknowledging anything.

    As I am sure many on this site are aware, Facebook is obviously trolling their users’ pages and other sites for info or key words. These are nefarious, dirty people and are always looking over their shoulders!

    Stay the course everyone!

  13. Comment by: Platypus

    This reminds me of the censors in China? How is it different?

  14. Comment by: Bryn T

    Me too! I was talking with Lawless America on Facebook too, then all of a sudden a screen popped up that I have NEVER seen before and I have been using it since high school telling me it was going to kick me off if I did not stop SPAMMING! I have never spammed in my life. THIS SOUNDS LIKE BIG BROTHER. My parents tell me this is the kind of censorship you see in a dictatorship. Very creepy. Who are these people running Facebook, a bunch of friggin NAZIS???

  15. Comment by: Conflicts Checker

    THEODORE W. ULLYOT, Facebook's General Legal Counsel, who oversaw the Leader v. Facebook judicial scandal, sorry, patent infringement case, appears to be dumping his stock:

    Here's the SEC Insider Trading Report for Theodore Warren Ullyot:

    Let's see, if this judicial misconduct was motivated by Facebook's law firms, directed by Mr. Ullyot, do you think the fingers might point to him? However, we all know he is only a puppet for the board of directors led by James W. Breyer, Yuri Milner (DST Moscow) and Sheryl Sandberg... the last two being bailout director Larry Summers' understudies. Hmmmmmmmm.

  16. COVER-UP AT THE US PATENT OFFICE: AFI has just received a copy of a recent Freedom of Information response just issued by the Patent Office in the growing judicial corruption scandal. As you can see for yourself, the USPTO literally covered up all disclosure of information regarding their order of a 3rd reexamination of Leader Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761.

    As a refresher, Facebook lost these arguments at trial. Then, they have lost them again, twice, during two earlier re-examinations. Not even the Patent Examiner Deandra M. Hughes approves of this 3rd reexam order.

    The scent of foul play is strong. This document can be obtained in two places:



    We'll write a post about this after we've had time to consider the implications. Clearly, the scandal hole gets deeper. As we have suspected all along it would. One cannot be this bad, for this long, without eventually getting caught.

  17. Comment by: Judicial Corruption

    This kind of cover-up is precisely what occurs when a government agency believes itself to be no longer accountable to the citizens who fund their very existence. Congratulations to whoever dug this up. Now we're getting somewhere. Everyone on this blog should use this material and request their own Congressional Inquiries from their Congresspersons and Freedom of Information Act requests. Suggest you ask to see all communications among every person identified on those USPTO messages and anyone on the list of Facebook cronies.

    Each of you should ask them each to disclose whether they hold Facebook stock either directly or through an investment vehicle like a mutual fund, IRA, Keogh, etc. Be sure to personalize your request with unique requests so that the USPTO cannot send a form letter response, like they did the last time.

    Make noise folks. It works. Bad guys don't like the light of day.

  18. Comment by: Judicial Corruption

    Just so everyone is clear, USPTO matters are overseen by federal judges too, they're called "Administrative Patent Judges."

    In the Leader v. Facebook 3rd examination, they are:

    Judge Allen R. MacDonald
    Judge Stephen C. Siu
    Judge Meredith C. Petravick

    These judges are also bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

    They should be asked to disclose whether they hold stock in Facebook, or whether any of their family members own stock. If they do, even a small amount, they are bound by the Code of Conduct to disqualify themselves.


    We updated the USPTO Cover-up Documents with an update that includes a new request for a new inquiry as a result of the covered-up contents. The Scribd link is automatically updated, here is the updated Google link:

  20. Comment by: Sleuth Dog

    We need people who know these individuals and their families to tell us which people have experienced "SUDDEN UNEXPLAINED WEALTH" or "SUDDEN UNEXPLAINED OPPORTUNITY."

    Such symptoms ALWAYS tag along, side by side, with corruption.

  21. Comment by: Light Reader

    I was just reading the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO today written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Englels in 1848. Ran across these Communist objectives:

    1. Abolition of property
    2. Heavy progressive graduated income tax
    4. Centralization of credit... by means of a national bank
    5. Centralization of the means of communication
    6. Free education for all children

    Wow, do these planks sound contemporary? Read for yourself a summary in Wikipedia at:

  22. Comment by: Well Duhhhh

    Leader v. Facebook is exposing:

    1. Abolition of property - denying property rights to the holder of a valid U.S. Patent - rights guaranteed in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution.

    4. Centralization of credit - Facebook Credits (oh wait, they claim the aren't doing this anymore, yeh right).

    5. Centralization of communications - Facebook and their scandal-ridden theft of Leader Technologies inventions; ripping off user privacy and shipping it to China, Russia and India.

    ... three out of your six Light Reader.

    The other three are being pushed actively by the current administration, it appears to me. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with free education, but as the Soviet Union learned, it works for a while as a means of political indoctrination, until it falls apart from within due to its moral bankruptcy.

    Looks like those die-hard communists are back in the saddle, now in business suits, allied with the Thieving Gangs in Silicon Valley - who sold their immortal souls to the highest borscht-breath bidders.

  23. Comment by: snoop dog

    All roads lead back to Lawrence Summers, Sheryl Sandberg and Yuri Milner when Summers was Chief Economist for the World Bank in the early 1990's.


    Summers was President of Harvard when Zuckerberg got his start in 2003-2004. Explains how the 19-yr. old received more press coverage than all other world figures except Clinton and Bush in THE HARVARD CRIMSON. They're layin' down the spin, dude.

    Summers proposed the failed economic transition policy in the USSR that gave birth to the current oligarch robber barons in Russia.

    Summers is teamed with one of the Russian oligarchs through his protege Yuri Milner, second largest investor in Facebook.

    Summers is teamed with Facebook through his protege Sheryl Sandberg, Chief Operating Officer at Facebook and Zuckerberg's puppetmaster.

    Summers friends at Goldman Sachs put an executive in London before the 2008 bailout with a big basket to catch theirs and Morgan Stanley's $32 billion windfall from the bailout. That executive now works for Yuri Milner in Dubai.

    Summers arranged to have himself appointed as "special adviser" to Marc Andreessen just weeks before the scandalous $1 billion purchase of Instagram by Facebook right before the IPO. Milner's and Sandberg's payoff? Their "thank you" for the years of tutelage in how to organize global corruption?

    Milner was associated in the early 2000's with Bank Menatep that was caught laundering over $10 billion in mob money and diverting over $4 billion in IMF funds (probably World Bank funds too, according to some reports).

    The list of koinky-dinks is much longer, these are only highlights

  24. Dear AFI Readers:

    AFI has received multiple reports this weekend of Facebook censorship of posts in Facebook private chats and even friend-ing of people who are attempting to publicize and follow the growing Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal.

    Facebook censorship has stopped PRIVATE conversations that were critical of Facebook, in several reports. In another, Facebook blocked friend requests between Facebook users and their U.S. Congressman, Senators and judicial reform advocacy groups like Lawless America.

    It has been suggested that those experiencing First Amendment Free Speech violations should report them to federal and state (1) Departments of Commerce, (2) Inspectors General, and (3) your members of Congress.

    U.S. Dept. of Commerce:

    U.S. Inspector General:
    Go to your State's Department of Commerce and Inspectors General Websites to get the contact information in your State.

    U.S. Congress:


  26. Comment by: Kissablechas

    Hey Kissablekaren,

    Facebook has the federal courts on their payroll. The better way is to boycott their advertisers and hit them where it hurts: their pocketbooks. Without advertisers giving them money, their revenue will dry up. 8-O

  27. Comment by: Judicial Corruption

    FACEBOOK INSIDERS ARE DUMPING STOCK at a feverish pace. Check out the latest Form 4 required disclosures at the SEC:

    What's the hurry boys and girls?


NOTICE TO COMMENTERS: When the MSM diatribe on "fake news" began, our regular commenters were blocked from posting comments here. Therefore, email your comments to a new secure email addess and we will post them.