SUPREME COURT USHERS IN THE TECH ROBBER BARON AGE?

Refusal to hear Leader v. Facebook tells inventors not to bother filing patents and sharing their inventions with the world

---

Contributing Authors | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Updated Jan. 24, 2013 | PDF

Update: (Jan. 24, 2013)—Did regulatory breakdown at the SEC contribute to the corruption of the federal courts in Leader v. Facebook?

Some readers are asking what role regulatory breakdown at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission may have played in the corruption of the courts in Leader v. Facebook. It’s an important question. Here’s why.

A roughly $3 billion “pre-IPO supplement” led to a Moscow, Russia company, Digital Sky and Yuri Milner, quietly acquiring (no questions asked) more than a 20% (est.) stake in Facebook before the IPO. If the SEC had properly investigated these transactions, and followed the law, it is highly unlikely that the IPO would have been allowed to proceed.

Facebook had obliterated the 500 shareholder rule for private companies. Also yet to be investigated is the possibility that U.S. taxpayer TARP bailout billions were used (via foreign bank accounts laundering the funds sent to them by Facebook's underwriters) to acquire these massive amounts of shares with cash.

Such activity is not unknown to Milner. Conspicuously absent from his current biographies is the fact that Milner worked for the CEO of the Russian Bank Menatep that was caught diverting $4.8 billion in IMF funds, as well as laundering $10 billion for the Russian mob. The money laundering also involved World Bank funds according to reports. Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg and Milner worked for Lawrence Summers, President Obama's bailout director, at the World Bank in the early 1990's. Summers helped architect the failed Russian voucher system that spawned the current system of Russian oligarchs. Sandberg and Milner helped him. Is this all mere coincidence?

Without a Facebook IPO, the Federal Circuit Judges Alan D. Lourie and Kimberly A. Moore would not have had the motivation to turn a blind eye to the U.S. Constitution in order to protect their undisclosed Facebook stock holdings. Even so, they were required by their Code of Conduct to disclose and disqualify. They did neither.

Since it appears that the federal courts and the press are in the wrongdoer's pockets (Judiciary and "Free" Press), we need to call upon Congress (Legislative) and the White House (Executive) to begin inquiries. If all four of our "check and balance" institutions are corrupted, we're as they say, "screwed" as a democracy.

Update: (Jan. 21, 2013)—"Judging Judges - Democracy demands ethical judicial conduct" blog features the conduct of the Federal Circuit in Leader v. Facebook. Click here go to the site. This site highlights the alleged misconduct of Judges Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore, Evan J. Wallach and Randall R. Rader, as well as the alleged misconduct of their super-clerk Jan Horbaly.

Facebook is the new tech robber baron

Update: (Jan. 16, 2013)—Yesterday a grassroots citizen's group named Concerned Americans United (CAU) called upon Congress to consider impeachment proceedings against the Federal Circuit judges and clerk in Leader v. Facebook.

Leader Technologies has bi-partisan support —from eminent American historian Professor Hy Berman, former political adviser to Vice President Hubert Humphrey to the Arizona Tea Party. Staffers for the House Committee on Government Reform have been receiving briefings, so this new request will not come as a surprise. In addition, various sites are posting the CAU flyers, click here to download the PDF.

Lawfare's 10 Steps To Corrupt The Federal Circuit

This Leader v. Facebook judicial misconduct debacle is exposing the "lawfare" tactics of Facebook's well-connected handlers.

Facebook's 10-step lawfare tactics go something like this, in our opinion:

1. ingratiate oneself in The Federal Circuit Bar Association "old boy" club—the nation's second largest bar association;
2. sell your pre-IPO stock to the Federal Circuit judges through one of your insider funds (in this case T.Rowe Price and Fidelity Contrafund, among others) so that the judge can use the "Gee Beav, I didn't know" excuse, if caught;
3. rape, pillage and plunder new inventions and make big money, quickly;
4. manipulate stock markets and regulators using unscrupulous law firms and their hired-liar "experts;"
5. clog the courts with interminable "motion practice;"
6. bully opponents with lies and bogus counter-suits (further clogging the courts);
7. influence judges to approve last minute new claims under the smoke screen of "judicial discretion;"
8. fabricate evidence that corrupt jurors and judges use to dish up your desired verdict;
9. on appeal, actually write the opinion for the Federal Circuit appeal judges yourself (wink wink); and
10. from there on out, simply deny, deny, deny all further protestations of injustice.

Voilà! There you have the ugly face of judicial corruption in America. (And we have the audacity to tell "lesser" countries not to do this?) This experience shows that judicial corruption need only be a subtle nod here, or there, in order to accomplish the desired result. As Facebook's current attorney (and Leader Technologies former attorney) Fenwick & West LLP's Gordon Davidson told the entrepreneurship class at Stanford University, "creativity" is figuring out what you want, then working backwards to achieve it. Too bad this approach appears to require breaches of ethics and laws—mere speed bumps to the unscrupulous?

ORIGINAL POST

(Jan. 11, 2013)—The Supreme Court’s acquiescence to the Facebook cabal by their refusal to hear the Leader v. Facebook appeal on Monday sent shock waves across the innovation world. The message to inventors is not to bother with the time and expense of filing for patents—because that work will simply evaporate in a federal court system corrupted by deep-pocket tech robber barons.

The decision gave the Court's blessing to the Facebook robber barons. Leader proved that Facebook stole their invention on 11 of 11 counts. Instead of paying Leader a suitable royalty, Facebook has paid off the courts to sustain an ill-gotten, tricky judgment made not by laws and facts, but by manipulation of judges, in our opinion. The manipulation seems evident in the court’s decisions which invalidated all of Facebook’s evidence, where the Court concocted new evidence in violation of Leader's constitutional rights to due process (Fifth and 14th Amendments), where the court ignored unequivocal new evidence that Mark Zuckerberg withheld 28 hard drives of discovery information from Leader, and where judges held undisclosed stock in Facebook during the proceedings.

"Behind the hoodies and flip-flops lurk businesspeople as rapacious as the black-suited and top-hatted industrialists of the late-19th century"

"The Ruthless Overlords of Silicon Valley" March 12, 2012

Property Theft by Courts

History teaches us that the ultimate robber barons are States that confiscate personal property, like the Soviet Union did after the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolshevik courts did the bidding of their paymasters also. The Supreme Court's conduct in Leader v. Facebook is every bit as egregious. It is as if they gave blessing to a thief driving your car away, or rifling your wallet.

Logic says that it is not possible to rule in a party’s favor (Facebook) after all their evidence has been debunked . . . unless that party is paying off or otherwise influencing the judges. Judicial influence corrupts a democracy to its core.

Like the robber barons of the Industrial Age, these new tech robber barons have stolen the underlying resources needed to run their system; used the ill-gotten gains to quash competition; bought politicians, government officials, judges and clerks; impoverished investors by selling stock at inflated prices; and, propped up the stock price with foreign trades using laundered monies, likely including TARP funds via banks who were bailed out by the American taxpayer in 2008, in our opinion.

The New Tech Robber Baron

Totalitarian Tool: Property Theft

Abuse of the public trust on a massive scale is not new. The late 1800’s saw similar exploitative practices to amass wealth. The term “robber baron” combines the sense of criminal (“robber”) and illegitimate aristrocray (“baron”). Wikipedia. What is new with these tech robber barons is the ability of the technologies they've co-opted to corrupt whole governments and countries, to seize personal data, and to institute an unregulated monetary system.

Must history repeat itself?

Are we destined to wait until the raping and pillaging damage is all over before we act to stop it? The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal court system evidently do not care about intellectual property and patents. That can now be said with certainty. They supported a Leader v. Facebook decision that had no basis in evidence or law.

The Soviet Union failed. However, a Soviet asymmetric warfare tactic called "lawfare" is being used by Facebook and its Moscow allies against the U.S. federal courts and financial systems. The U.S. Supreme Court just fell victim to lawfare in Leader v. Facebook, we believe.

They don't care, but do you? If so, what are you (and we) going to do about it?

The robber barons have convinced a billion people on the planet to become addicted to their formulation of the “social networking” drug. How do we help these addicts and wrestle control of this technology from the criminals?

The robber barons probably think “the masses” will soon come to accept their thefts as “the new normal.”* Let’s prove that assumption fatal.

* * *

Footnote:

* The "new normal" proposition is a favorite tool of stock manipulators to try and convince the mass market that their value proposition should replace the previously accepted one. For example, the public was asked to accept the "dotcom" bubble as "the new normal" for tech valuations. History tells us this proposition was a devious smoke screen to enable crooked telecom and Silicon Valley CEOs to cash in their options before the valuation bubble burst. Some of those executives are in jail today, like Bernie Ebbers (MCI) and Joe Nacchio (Qwest). Others have gotten away with their crimes, including some of the "venture capitalists" dictating Facebook's conduct. This "pump-and-dump" strategy is being repeated by the Facebook cronies, both in the USA and the former Soviet Union where Facebook appears to be moving much of its core "Facebook Credits" R&D.