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"

Thursday, June 13, 2013


President Obama Cheats Leader to protect 50+ million “likes”

Eric Holder instruct Judge Leonard Stark to violate Leader's rights?

Chief Justice Roberts failed to disclose his Facebook conflicts

Contributing Writers | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | Updated Mar. 21, 2013 post-Scribd Censorship | PDF
Judge Leonard P. StarkJudge Leonard P. Stark "liked" Facebook investments in lockstep with Chief Justice John Roberts
All five Leader v. Facebook federal judges hold Fidelity investments. Facebook Director James W. Breyer and his Accel Partners LLP is the common denominator. Facebook insiders, most notably Breyer, dumped over $6 billion on Day 3 of the IPO under the smoke screen of the supposed NASDAQ glitch, before the price crashed. Breyer has collaborated for a decade with Robert Ketterson, a Fidelity Managing Partner who oversees Fidelity tech investing. They even own companies together. James W. Breyer, John P. Breyer, Facebook, Accel Partners LLP, IDG Capital Partners, Chinese investingThey worked hand in hand setting policy for U.S. venture investing almost a decade ago at the National Venture Capital Association. Remarkably, since then Breyer has turned to dissing U.S. venture investing in favor of Chinese investing. His elusive father, James P. Breyer, runs IDG Capital Partners out of Beijing.[46] More conducive to IP theft and corrupt financing?

Is American innovation and the rule of law being hacked to pieces by these people—from their new Chinese bird's nest, aided by U.S. judges?

Chief Justice John Roberts mentors Facebook's attorneys

Editorial: The scandals just keep coming. One wonders if the law schools at Harvard, Yale, Columbia and GW cancelled Ethics, U.S. Constitution and Human Decency 101 during the years that these people attended. Or, maybe their mamas just didn't raise them right. Who knows? Anyway...

In 1992, Chief Justice Roberts mentored Facebook's attorney, Thomas G. Hungar. Roberts also collaborated with another Gibson Dunn LLP attorney, Theodore B. Olson. None of these conflicting relationships were disclosed in Leader v. Facebook. Hungar's participation compromised both the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court in ethics violations. These circumstances are akin to a judge hearing a case argued by a close relative and not disclosing that relationship to the other side. Lack of disclosure is scandalous. Olson is an Obama appointee to The Administrative Conference of the United States. The "Obstruction of Justice" illustration has been update below to show these new connections to The White House. Was Roberts' Obamacare vote the quid pro quo? The mind wanders.


Justice Roberts holds massive amounts of Facebook-related stock
Jun. 10, 2013
Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts was massively conflicted in Leader v. Facebook
New judicial financial disclosures reveal that the Chief Justice failed to disclose mountains of Facebook conflicts in Leader v. Facebook—companies with dubious ties to the Kremlin, U.S. bailout, and direct ties to Michael Rhodes, Facebook's attorney (Cooley Godward LLP).[42]


New evidence implicates The White House in obstruction of justice

(Jun. 9, 2013)—AFI readers / investigators have just uncovered more ties between The White House and the growing Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. Click here to read the Comment. Previously suppressed and censored court documents have just surfaced that prove the Federal Circuit itself was represented by Facebook's attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP BEFORE the Leader appeal to the Federal Circuit.

The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges[12] dictated disclosure of conflicts and disqualifications by the judges. Instead, the judges just faked impartiality as their man Hungar argued for Facebook. Click here: Document 1,[41] Document 2[38] (see "Obstruction of Justice" illustration for context—click to enlarge).

The documents also prove that Gibson Dunn, the Federal Circuit's law firm, suppressed the evidence of 28 Zuckerberg hard drives in Leader v. Facebook. Facebook's other attorneys, Cooley Godward LLP, told Leader's attorneys that the hard drives were lost. These circumstances are scandals within scandals. The Federal Circuit's duplicity in allowing Hungar to appear before them in Leader v. Facebook is scandalous enough.
All Fidelity Fund investments by Supreme Court justices and District Court Judge Leonard P. Stark, 2011

Worse, that appearance also identified Cooley Godward LLP, whose Man in The White House, Donald K. Stern, advises President Obama on Justice Department matters. Stern would have advised on the Leonard P. Stark and Evan J. Wallach appointments to federal courts, which is also scandalous. Stern is former chief legal counsel to Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, who ran unsuccessfully for President against George H.W. Bush in 1988. He then became a U.S. Attorney, which makes him a contemporary of another U.S. Attorney associated with this scandal, namely Preet Bharara, formerly with Gibson Dunn. Bharara is currently prosecuting Paul Ceglia in U.S. v. Ceglia over dubious criminal claims involving Zuckerberg and Ceglia from 2003 (the year of the theft of Leader Technologies' source code).

New! Jun. 17, 2013. The last week saw remarkable changes from two attorneys and firms associated with the Leader v. Facebook case and President Obama. Donald K. Stern from Cooley Godward LLP jumped ship to a small Boston law firm in a transparent attempt to distance himself from Cooley Godward LLP and Obama. Then, "Amber H. Rovner" of Weil Gotshal, who filed a motion for the Federal Circuit Bar Association to absolve the Federal Circuit judges of their conflicts of interest in Leader v. Facebook, changed her name to "Amber L. Hagy." This move would prevent her name from appearing in searches associated with her involvement as "Amber H. Rover" in Leader v. Facebook, the Federal Circuit and Judge Kimberly A. Moore (Weil Gotshal was Judge Moore's former client—a conflict not disclosed to Leader Technologies). See Table below, Feb. 22, 2011.

May 1, 2013—President Obama’s Justice Dept. ''advisor'' Donald K. Stern leaves Cooley Godward LLP to join a small law firm in Boston, just as the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal heats up

The evidence is now pointing to a compromised-in-toto Federal Circuit court whose motives for protecting Facebook were many, and included (1) boosting the judges' stock portfolios in the Facebook IPO; (2) protecting President Obama's 47 million "likes" on Facebook in the run-up to the election and beyond; (3) preserving the Facebook cabal's global virtual currency plan via Facebook Credits; (4) protecting the tens of billions of winnings in their Facebook IPO "pump and dump" stock scheme; (5) protecting the ability to spy on Facebook users unobstructed; (6) legitimizing Facebook's hundreds of bogus patent applications filed for them by Fenwick & West LLP (Leader's former attorney); (7) concealing pay-to-play judge nominations, and (8) concealing cooperation with foreign powers, among others.

To be investigated further are the uncanny facts that: (1) while the Zuckerberg's 28 hard drives were being concealed from Leader Technologies (and Stark was blocking further Leader discovery after he allowed Facebook to add the on-sale bar claim), on Jun. 4, 2010 Mark Zuckerberg revealed his weird "Illuminati" symbol to New York Times editor Kara Swisher, and (2) within a few months, after the Leader v. Facebook whitewash by newly-appointed Judge Leonard P. Stark, President Obama held an all hands on deck meeting of his Silicon Valley techies. Zuckerberg was, like, his wing man, dude. (Feb. 17, 2011). Evidently, the sovereignty of the Constitution and America's data was being placed into the President's personal control in that toast.

Corruption Watch List
  1. Leonard P. Stark, Kimberly A. Moore and Evan P. Wallach lied to Congress about how they would handle conflicts of interest
  2. Judge Kimberly A. Moore has spouse associations with Facebook principals
  3. Federal Circuit court records have been cleansed to obscure massive conflicts among all the judges and the court itself
  4. Judge Evan J. Wallach held Facebook stock too; this means ALL THREE JUDGES HELD FACEBOOK STOCK.
  5. Wallach's wife, Dr. Katherine Tobin, is tight with the Obama administration and Harry Reid. She too has plenty of motivation to protect Obama's 47 million "likes"
  6. Facebook's attorney Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, also represented the Federal Circuit and was not disqualified
  7. Judge Moore's former client, Weil Gotshal LLP, also represented the Federal Circuit Bar against Leader, and she did not recuse
  8. The Leader v. Facebook panel was an ambush; all three judges held Facebook stock and were conflicted out the wazoo

New, 6/6/13: All three Leader v. Facebook Federal Circuit judges held stock in Facebook during the proceedings

(May 24, 2013) — Investigators have uncovered deep ties between the Obama administration and Facebook’s attorneys Cooley Godward Kronish LLP (“Cooley”). These ties should invalidate the Leader v. Facebook courts for bias, collusion and maybe RICO (if you tell someone else to do your dirty work, you are just as guilty).[1]

Consider the cover-up of four deaths at the Benghazi embassy the State Department; the targeting of the Tea Party by the IRS; the secret wiretapping of The Associated Press approved by Justice Department magistrate judge. And now, consider the corruption of the SEC and Justice Department to protect 47 million “likes” on Facebook.

Flippancy telegraphs a governmental cancer

These scandals expose an arrogant administration that stops at nothing to get its way. On Wednesday, when former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman was asked by the House Oversight Committee why he made 118 visits to the White House, he cited an Easter Egg hunt.[2] This flippancy telegraphs a governmental cancer.

New! May 30: Stand Firm—Obtain Public Financial & Other Records— Root Out This Corruption

Any member of the public may request the Public Financial Disclosure Reports of a public official. Fill in the form by hand or on your computer, print it out, and fax or mail it. Click here to obtain the form.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests can be made by any citizen. Click here for the FOIA instructions. Do it. Public accountability demands that Americans pester these agencies until they stop stonewalling. When stonewalled, appeal. Ask your senators and congresspersons for assistance. Don't be put off. They will be haughty. Guaranteed. Be the squeaky wheel. Ask for cost exemption. Your government should not be charging you under the ruse of "efficiency" for records that you paid for in the first place.

See Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, Nov. 19, 1863 ("government of the people, by the people, for the people").

“Drip, drip, drip.”

In such a cancerous ethical environment, bribing judges to hide Facebook’s theft of the technology that runs Facebook is just another day at the office. They expect Leader Technologies and its investors, whom they’ve cheated, to get over it, like a bad cold. What will be needed to get to the bottom of this corruption? To quote John Boehner this morning: “Drip, drip, drip.”[3]

In Leader v. Facebook, Facebook was found guilty on 11 of 11 counts of stealing Leader’s technology, and yet Facebook has sidestepped accountability, so far, with Cooley-fabricated evidence. This custom-made evidence has been excused by federal judges ever since.[4]

Now we know why. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department will direct judges to ignore the law to protect Obama and his friends.[5]

Another federal magistrate judge behaving badly

Judge Leonard P. Stark, U.S. District Court of Delaware Judge Leonard P. StarkLied to Congress about faithfulness to precedent; abused due process; ignored Pfaff test; was rewarded by Obama with judge seat – eight days after the Leader v. Facebook trial.
Judge Leonard P. Stark bent every rule and law necessary to avoid ruling against Facebook in Leader v. Facebook . . . and was rewarded by President Obama with a judgeship eight days after the trial ended on July 27, 2010

Another federal magistrate judge, Leonard P. Stark, presided over the Leader v. Facebook trial between July 19 and July 28, 2010. He had only been assigned to the case one month before trial. He replaced veteran judge Joseph Farnan, a Reagan appointee. We have just learned that Cooley attorney Donald Stern was advising the Obama Justice Department at the time.[6] Since Cooley’s attorneys were representing Facebook in Leader v. Facebook, any involvement by a Stern regarding Stark is a conflict of interest and possibly corrupt.[7]

In the month before trial, Stark was busy helping Facebook. Stark allowed Facebook to add a new on-sale bar claim. It came after the close of all discovery, and on the same day that he took over the trial. On-sale bar is polar opposite to their earlier false marking—which arrogantly claimed that Leader had no invention, but was telling the world they did. In the switcheroo, Facebook was conceding that they were infringing Leader’s patent, but this last minute flip-flop now alleged that Leader tried to sell the invention too soon.

EVIDENCE OF A CORRUPT COURT: None of the normal on-sale bar legal tests were performed in Leader v. FacebookFig. 1Well-accepted legal precedents were instructed to the jury, then utterly ignored by Magistrate Leonard P. Stark and the Federal Circuit in Leader v. Facebook. Neither Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark, nor the Federal Circuit appeals court, nor the U.S. Supreme Court, applied the customary legal tests cited above to determine whether Facebook even had any evidence, much less whether it was clear and convincing.

This is political whitewash by an Obama administration Justice Department that is above the law, uses corrupt law firms like Cooley Godward LLP and employs bag men like Michael Rhodes to do their bidding. Rhodes became counsel over Tesla Motor's $465 million Obama stimulus DURING the Leader v. Facebook case.

checkmark Judge Leonard P. Stark was rewarded with a judgeship eight (8) days after the trial.

checkmark All three Federal Circuit judges, Kimberly A. Moore, Alan D. Lourie and Evan J. Wallach were rewarded with a Facebook IPO value boost to their stock portfolios (We have no idea how many in their immediate families invested also. They refused to disclose those "third degree" investments when asked.).

checkmarkFederal Circuit decisions were timed perfectly to Facebook's pre-IPO media needs. Said that was just "coincidence."

checkmarkFederal Circuit clerk staffer for Clerk Jan Horbaly, Valerie White, said the judges did not have time to see motions (that was before her phone number was changed the next day and she stopped returning calls).

On-sale bar is like the tax code. Nobody understands it. Even the name "on-sale bar" sounds like a judicial honky-tonk, so it's a playground for unscrupulous lawyers. When Judge Leonard Stark failed to use the Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc. U.S. Supreme Court gold standard for testing the on-sale claims (along with other well-accepted precedents), experience litigators assumed that the Federal Circuit would fix this mistake of a newbie judge.[8]

Sadly, the borders of this Cooley Godward playground include the Federal Circuit, U.S. Supreme Court and other "high-powered" lawyers like Gibson Dunn LLP, Facebook's appellate lawyers.

Stark blocked Leader from building defenses to the new claim. Leader could have easily presented its source code to prove the allegation was false, but Stark blocked it. Facebook did not put up a single piece of hard evidence. Instead, Stark allowed two pieces of Cooley-doctored evidence at trial. Fragments of evidence are normally not allowed to be presented in court. This so-called evidence became the centerpiece of the judicial misconduct from that point forward.

Facebook offered no expert witnesses, no source code evidence, no testimony from the third parties who supposedly received these offers, no legal proofs at all. They only had Cooley Godward’s snippets of video taken out of context, and a 60% blanked out questionnaire. Legally speaking, the Facebook decision was a whitewash by Stark; a total outlier.

In an apparent reward for handing Facebook the on-sale bar verdict, Stark was confirmed on August 5, 2010,[10] just eight days after the Leader v. Facebook trial ended.

The timing is just all too unseemly.

Timeline of Scandal in Leader v. Facebook
JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY in Leader v. Facebook

Obama linked to both Facebook Cooley Godward attorney Michael Rhodes and Magistrate Judge Leonard P.Stark

CODE OF CONDUCT: "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety"
Nov. 18, 2008 Leader Technologies sued Facebook for patent infringement of their U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761.

Facebook represented by White & Case LLP (Heidi Keefe, Mark Weinstein)

Judge Joseph Farnan stated publicly that he was looking forward to taking the Leader v. Facebook case to trial. See Leader Techs, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D. Del. 2011).
17 days later
Dec. 05, 2008 Cooley’s Donald K. Stern named advisor to Obama Justice Department (incl. recommendations to fill federal judge seats)
Apr. 23, 2009 McBee Strategic and Cooley announced a partnership "designed to help clean energy technology companies access public-sector capital." They arranged funding for BrightSource ($1.6 billion), Solyndra ($535) and Tesla Motors ($465 million).
May 2009 Facebook accepts first $200 million investment from Moscow, Russia-based Yuri Milner, DST Systems, aka Digital Sky Technologies. This is the beginning of the "pump and dump" strategy culminating in the $100 billion IPO valuation after which the Facebook insiders dumped over $16 billion on Day 3 of the IPO.
Q2/Q3, 2009 Facebook's Discovery Fraud:

Facebook attorneys Heidi Keefe, Mark Weinstein and Jeffrey Norberg lied to Leader Technologies' attorneys. They said that Zuckerberg "lost" all of his documents and files from 2003-2004. In 2012, Facebook experts admitted in Ceglia v. Facebook that 28 Zuckerberg hard drives and Harvard emails were in the possession of Facebook's attorneys the whole time. Those files would prove that Zuckerberg and his PayPal Mafia handlers (Lawrence "Larry" Summers, James W. Breyer, Accel Partners, Ping Li, Jim Swartz, Reid Hoffman, Peter Thiel, Matt Cohler) stole Leader's actual source code with the assistance of Fenwick & West LLP (Gordon K. Davidson), Leader's former counsel.

NOTE: Keefe and Weinstein's former employee at White & Case LLP, Samuel C. O'Rourke, silently reappeared as Facebook's inside intellectual property counsel during this discovery period. Pundits suspect that O'Rourke's task was to "scrub" the Zuckerberg evidence that would be fatal to The Grand Scheme. No Facebook press release was ever issued on O'Rourke's arrival. He just appeared. Several months later on Aug. 31, 2009, he fired White & Case LLP and hired Cooley Godward LLP where Keefe and Weinstein had moved . . . with their Facebook client in tow.

Mark Zuckerberg's 28 computer hard drives and Harvard emails exist; they were never ''lost'' as they told Leader Technologies in 2009
Figure: Depiction of Mark Zuckerberg's 28 computer hard drives and Harvard emails exist; they were never ''lost'' as they told Leader Technologies in 2009. On July 18-19, 2012, their existence was confirmed by Facebook forensic experts Michael F. McGowan and Bryan J. Rose of Stroz Friedberg in Ceglia v. Zuckerberg.

Deposition of Michael F. McGowan, Facebook Forensic ExpertPaul D. Ceglia v. Mark E. Zuckerberg, 1:10-cv-00569-RJA (W.D.N.Y. 2010), Jul. 19, 2012.
Deposition of Bryan J. Rose, Facebook Forensic ExpertPaul D. Ceglia v. Mark E. Zuckerberg, 1:10-cv-00569-RJA (W.D.N.Y. 2010), Jul. 18, 2012.

Aug. 31, 2009 Cooley acquires Heidi Keefe and Mark Weinstein; they bring Facebook as a client to Cooley. Cooley assigns Michael Rhodes as lead trial counsel.
Nov. 20, 2009 McBee Strategic filed a LOBBYING disclosure form with the U.S. Senate and failed to disclose their strategic alliance with Cooley Godward LLP to help companies like BrightSource and Tesla Motors obtain "green" stimulus funds.
McBee Strategic failed to disclose their strategic alliance with Cooley Godward LLP in their lobbying disclosure to the U.S. Senate on Nov. 20, 2009
Jan. 20, 2010 Leader dismantled Facebook’s case in the Markman Hearing. Judge Farnan’s Opinion took Facebook to the woodshed. (Markman is a pivotal hearing after which one of the parties often knows they are going to lose the legal argument.)

Obama’s tens of millions of Facebook “likes” were threatened, as was his campaign cash cow, as was his 2012 campaign mouthpiece, as was Fenwick & West’s hundreds of Zuckerberg patent filings, as was James W. Breyer’s grand plan to “pump and dump” Facebook stock, as was Larry Summers’ plan for a new global currency using Facebook Credits, etc.

Bottom line, too many interrelated schemes were threatened to let a little thing like American property law and due process rights stand in their way.

Cooley’s Donald K. Stern went to work to save THE GRAND SCHEME.
6 days later
Jan. 26, 2010 Judge Farnan surprise announcement to retire to private practice, effective Jul. 31, 2010 (after Leader v. Facebook trial).

New, 6/5/12


Feb. 22, 2010

Judicial Scandal
Judge Kimberly A. Moore, Federal Circuit Matthew J. Moore, Latham & Watkins LLP

Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges:
"avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety"[12]

Matthew J. Moore joined Latham & Watkins LLP on Feb. 22, 2010.[33] Matthew Moore is the husband of Federal Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore (here's his bio). Judge Moore is one of the three-judge panel in Leader v. Facebook.

Latham & Watkins LLP's clients include James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP, Facebook's second largest shareholder.

Latham & Watkins LLP alumni include SEC Chief Counsel Thomas J. Kim. In 2008 (about one month before the so-called financial crisis), Kim granted Facebook an exemption to the 500-shareholder rule. This exemption opened the floodgates for Facebook's broker Goldman Sachs to raise $$$ billions in dubious investments from Moscow, Russia. This enabled Breyer's "pump & dump" strategy that netted Facebook insiders over $7 billion on Day 3 of the Facebook IPO alone.

During this time, Judge Moore and her husband Matthew held undisclosed Facebook stock, and were thus enriched by the Facebook IPO. Judge Moore did not disclose her Facebook holdings or disqualify herself from Leader v. Facebook. Hindsight says her silence was deafening.

In her Senate confirmation hearing, Kimberly Moore disclosed that she was an expert witness for Weil Gotshal LLP. Therefore, propriety would dictate that she disqualify herself from hearing any cases (1) handled by her husband's former or present employers, Howrey LLP or Latham & Watkins LLP, or (2) cases involving her former client, Weil Gotshal LLP. See Kimberly A. Moore Senate Confirmation Hearing, Jun. 28, 2006, p. 71.[35]

Two cases were before Judge Moore in early 2012, Leader v. Facebook and Marine Polymer v. HemCon. The Federal Circuit court records in both cases are conspicuously incomplete, but enough is available to paint a clear picture of misconduct by both Judge Moore and Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly.

In Marine Polymer, Judge Kimberly A. Moore's husband Matthew J. Moore filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief for Geico Corporation on Feb. 10, 2012. One can only piece this date together by working backwards from the Decision, then finding a single clerk entry that mentions Geico, but not Matthew Moore. Normally all but sealed documents are available for public review. However, in Marine Polymer almost none of the case documents are available. The official statement is "not available for download." In fact, an entry in another part of the docket says the entire record is sealed, which is highly unusual, especially for a case involving high profile companies (Broadcom, Cisco, Dell, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard, SAP and eBay) entering Friend of the Court briefs. Normally companies want their opinions highly publicized. What is being hidden? We think it is the misconduct of the court in Leader v. Facebook.

DOCTORED FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT RECORDS, AGAIN: The Rules require every attorney who makes an appearance in a case to formally register an appearance with the court. The court docket always lists the names of the attorneys at the beginning of the docket. However, Matthew J. Moore's entry in Marine Polymer has been REMOVED from the docket.[37] However, we know he made an entry because he is identified in the decision. The evident attempt here is to obscure his association with Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Latham & Watkins LLP, and conceal misconduct, in our opinion. If one were to do a job assessment of Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly, based solely on his clerking in Leader v. Facebook and Marine Polymer, one would have to conclude that he is utterly incompetent... but, we don't think he's incompetent.

Marine Polymer reveals something equally as startling. Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP filed amicus curiae briefs for Broadcom, Cisco, Dell, Facebook, Google, Hewlett-Packard, SAP and eBay.

Judge Moore disqualified herself in Marine Polymer merely because of her relationship to her husband, Matthew. (We surmise. The Clerk even sealed her disqualification filing.)

However, Judge Moore did not disqualify herself in Leader v. Facebook, even in the face of egregious conflicts, including:
  1. She held stock in Facebook via her holdings in Fidelity Contrafund, whose Facebook holdings were notoriously known (in other words, what was good for Facebook was good for her and husband);

  2. Her former client, Weil Gotshal LLP, made an appearance adverse to Leader Technologies in Leader v. Facebook, an appearance that was never docketed, but is viewable here (in other words, what was good for Weil Gotshal was good for Facebook, and was therefore good for her and husband);[34]

  3. Her former client, Weil Gotshal, LLP, was Facebook's attorney in Marine Polymer (again, what was good for her former client, was good for Facebook, and was therefore good for her and husband);

  4. Her husband, Matthew J. Moore, appeared in the Marine Polymer case representing Latham & Watkins LLP in amicus curiae interests that were aligned with Facebook (in other words, what was good for Facebook, was good for her former client, and was therefore good for her and husband);

  5. Latham & Watkins LLP, her husband's firm, was counsel to James W. Breyer and Accel Partners, Facebook's director and second largest shareholder (in other words, what was good for Facebook, was good for Accel Partners, was good for James W. Breyer, was good for Latham & Watkins LLP, was good for her former client, and was therefore good for her and husband).
Perhaps one infraction in isolation might be forgiven, but together . . .

What judge candidate Kimberly A. Moore promised Congress on Jun. 28, 2006, and what she did in Leader v. Facebook on Jul. 16, 2012
New! Jun. 6, 2013 - All three judges held Facebook stock during Leader v. Facebook:
The Federal Circuit three-judge panel in Leader v. Facebook included Judge Evan J. Wallach. Wallach has absolutely no patent experience, so why is he presiding over a patent case? Judge Wallach was nominated by Barack Obama. More protection for Obama's 47 million Facebook "likes?" This becomes evident now that proof has emerged that Wallach held Facebook stock, just like Judge Kimberly A. Moore and Judge Alan D. Lourie, during the proceedings.[36]The Wallach Senate confirmation information is on pages pp. III, IV, VII, 1, 6, 7, 9-91. Judge Wallach's wife Dr. Katherine Tobin has been well taken care of by Obama and his allies, but most especially by Senator Harry Reid. What's good for Facebook is good for Harry, and is therefore good for Wallach and his wife.

Wallach gave this testimony and was appointed to the Federal Circuit during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings. Was his cooperation in The Grand Scheme his price of appointment by Obama, just like Leonard P. Stark?

Judge Evan J. Wallach held stock in Facebook during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings

It gets worse folks...

Evan J. Wallach has an extensive professional relationship with Terence P. Stewart.

Stewart argued four cases before Judge Wallach at the Court of International Trade between 2004-2007. The cases were:
  1. NSK LTD. v. US, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (2004);
  2. SKF USA INC. v. US, 316 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (2004);
  3. NSK LTD. v. US, 481 F. 3d 1355 (2007); and
  4. PS CHEZ SIDNEY v. US INTERN. TRADE COM'N., 502 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (2007)
By Aug. 3, 2010 (see illustration below), Terence P. Stewart was Vice President of the Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA). This placed Stewart in a position to influence Judge Wallach's nomination to the Federal Circuit JUST A MONTH LATER. Ironically, only four days after the Leader v. Facebook trial, Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP (Judge Kimberly A. Moore's former client), joined Stewart and Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, Facebook's appeals counsel in Leader v. Facebook, in an amicus curiae brief in support of Federal Circuit Judge Randall R. Rader fight not to be disqualified from hearing a case.[38]

The Federal Circuit is entwined in an hairball of incestuous relationships

The illustration above occurred on August 3, 2010. Now see the same actors two years later in Leader v. Facebook. Note that "Amber H. Rovner" of Weil Gotshal LLP has very recently changed her name to "Amber L. Hagy." She also goes by "Amber Hatfield."[48]

(Note to AFI investigators: Amber H. Rovner is very evidently attempting to distance herself from her longtime association with Weil Gotshal LLP—Judge Kimberly A. Moore's former client. What she has done will prevent her name from appearing in normal searches using her "H. ROVER" middle and last name. Therefore, when you search, be sure to search "Amber H. Rovner" OR "Amber Hatfield" OR "Amber L. Hagy". We have seen this trick before where attorneys in this case change their names to avoid being detected in searches. Fenwick & West LLP's attorney "Christopher P. King" changed his name on Facebook filings to "Christopher-Charles King." This way, his name would not appear anywhere associated to Leader Technologies' U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761, which Christopher P. King does (associated with two Marc Andreessen patents in 2005). This association proves "inequitable conduct"—FRAUD—by Fenwick & West LLP at the U.S. Patent Office—a fact that the Patent Office is ignoring.)

New: Jun. 17, 2013

Amber H. Rovner aka Amber Hatfield aka Amber L. Hagy, Weil Gotshal Manges LLP

More sins of the Federal Circuit

Update Jun. 18, 2013—As expected, AFI researchers have discovered a direct connection between Amber H. Rovner, Weil Gotshal LLP, and Judge Kimberly A. Moore.

In her Senate Confirmation, Moore disclosed that Weil Gotshal LLP was her client and identified a case, In Seagate Tech LLC v. Cornice, Inc. (D.Del. 04-418(SLR)). It turns out that at least two of the Weil Gotshal patent litigation partners on that case, namely Jason D. Kipnis & Adrian Percer, work with Amber H. Rovner, a.k.a. Amber L. Hagy a.k.a. Amber Hatfield, currently. This conflict meant that Judge Moore had a solemn duty to speak up about the conflict.[49] The rule in colloquial terms is, if it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck . . . recuse. Judge Moore clearly cheated lady justice and Leader Technologies' shareholders who counted on her to judge rightly. She pumped her Fidelity stock portfolio instead.

The Federal Circuit is entwined in an hairball of incestuous relationships

On Sep. 11, 2012, Terence P. Stewart, now President of the FCBA, was again represented by Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP (Judge Kimberly A. Moore's former client) in a motion adverse to Leader in Leader v. Facebook to absolve the judges of their conflicts of interest.[34]

New! Jun. 7, 2013

The court docket has been cleansed of documents and entries proving that these bad actors actually represented and/or had conflicting relationships with: (1) the FCBA, (2) the judges and (3) Facebook and Microsoft, BEFORE the Leader v. Facebook appeal was filed.

What does this mean? It means the entire Federal Circuit court compromised itself in Leader v. Facebook. They did not disqualify themselves according to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and Judicial Employees

New evidence suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts was also conflicted via massive amounts of Facebook-related stock holdings just release for public review.[42]

Thomas G. Hungar, Counsel for Federal Circuit Bar Association, Certificate of Service, Aug. 3, 2010

A year later, Thomas Hungar represented Facebook in Leader v. Facebook in arguments before the Federal Circuit in 2011/2012. The judges just smiled and pretended to act impartially.

Remarkably, the Aug. 3, 2010 amicus curiae motion containing this Thomas G. Hungar Certificate of Service (above) is not available on the Federal Circuit docket. Yet another damning piece of information has been removed from a Federal Circuit docket. Censorship of court records is illegal. They are supposed to be published unless they are sealed for a proper purpose.

Protecting judges from the consequences of their misconduct is not a proper purpose. Instead, it was discovered on the PatentlyO website.[38] Also remarkably, no attorneys associated with this motion are entered in the docket, which is required by the Rules of Federal Procedure. This docket too, like the Leader v. Facebook and Marine Polymers dockets, fails to show proper entries for Matthew J. Moore, Thomas G. Hungar, Terence P. Stewart, Edward R. Reines, Amber H. Rovner, Reeve T. Bull, Gibson Dunn LLP, or Weil Gotshal LLP. However, after discovering their motion at PatentlyO, we were able to piece the story back together; thus proving the duplicity of the court.[39]

Put simply, the ethics rules demanded that the court address the conflicts of interest issues in this case—before proceeding. They were not only silent, but when motions were filed asking them to disclose their conflicts of interest, they failed to even respond or docket those motions. In short, they put themselves above the law.

No collusion hangs together perfectly. For example, Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly's staffer, Valerie White,[40] told a caller that the judges could not have even seen the amicus curiae briefs in Leader v. Facebook before they were denied within hours of being received. They were presumably dispensed with by Clerk Horbaly acting unilaterally. Ms. White's phone extension at the Federal Circuit office was disconnected the next day.

The illustration above is proof that the three-judge panel failed to recuse themselves, or alternatively, failed to insist that Facebook appoint an attorney other than Thomas G. Hungar and Gibson Dunn LLP. Even then, that would not have been enough. The FCBA motion and entry of Weil Gotshal and Edward Reines dictated that Judges Moore, Wallach, Lourie, Rader, all the en banc judges, as well as Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly recuse. Instead, they were silent on the constitution, but went out of their way to accommodate Facebook's pre-IPO needs with decisions perfectly timed to Facebook's IPO schedule. Of course, they would since all three judges wanted the boost in their stock portfolios that Facebook's handlers promised as the quid pro quo.

FACEBOOK ATTORNEYS like to change their names during litigation; Weil Gotshal Manges LLP, Judge Kimberly A. Moore, Amber H. Rovner, Amber L. Nagy, Amber Hatfield, Christopher P. King, Christopher-Charles King, Federal Circuit, Jan Horbaly, Judge Alan D. Lourie, Judge Evan J. Wallach, Leader v. Facebook, Leader Technologies, Facebook, Fenwick & West LLP, inequitable conduct, fraud, Gordon K. Davidson, judicial misconduct, prior art

Code of Conduct Sins:
  1. When Stewart, as President of the FCBA—Wallach's new bar association, filed the 2012 motion adverse to Leader, Judge Wallach should have disqualified himself, but did not. Instead, he was silent about his conflicting relationship to Stewart.

  2. When Stewart and the FCBA hired Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP—Judge Moore's former client, Judge Moore should have disqualified herself, but did not. She was silent about her conflicting relationship to Weil Gotshal.

  3. Judge Moore, while presiding over Leader v. Facebook, failed to disclose that Thomas Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP—Facebook's counsel, represented the FCBA—her bar association, on the subject of judge recusal, in conjunction Weil Gotshal LLP, her former client.

  4. Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly failed to disclose that he is an officer at the FCBA, and that one of his FCBA directors is Microsoft, one of Facebook's largest shareholders (this explains all the squirrelly docket entries in this and other cases involving these actors).

  5. Neither Judges Randall R. Rader, Kimberly A. Moore, Evan J. Wallach, Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly nor the entire en banc Federal Circuit court disclosed their attorney-client relationship with Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP. This set of conflicts is inexcusable and shows the court to be ethically profligate.
Instead, the highly-conflicted three-judge panel of Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore and Evan J. Wallach put on a charade of objectivity; listening as Thomas G. Hungar fumbled and stumbled through his Facebook arguments. Former Bloomberg TV journalist Donna Kline attended the hearing on March 5, 2012 and reported that Hungar did a bad job and she overheard him apologizing to a Facebook attorney Jeffrey Norberg. Nonetheless, the judges pretended impartiality. Then, the judges walked back into the secrecy of chambers, concocted new "evidence," ignored the fact that a jury had not considered their new evidence (which had not even been argued by Facebook!), and ruled against Leader anyway. Can judge bias get any more evident?

The violations of Leader Technologies' constitutional rights are obscene.

[Editor: The list of doctored Federal Circuit dockets is growing: Leader v. Facebook, Marine Polymer v. Hemcon, Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office. Tellingly, all the actors associated with Leader v. Facebook are cleansed from those earlier records. It has taken our researchers over three days of digging to unearth the truth, thanks to a few breaks, like the PatentlyO document containing Thomas G. Hungar's signature representing the Federal Circuit Bar Association in 2010. That certification proves the illegality of the court's conduct.]

Apr. 6, 2010 Judge Farnan set the discovery closing date for May 14.
NEW 6/2/13:

Apr. 22, 2010
Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark stated at his U.S. Senate confirmation Hearing, under oath:
"My obligation is to follow the binding precedents of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals."[30]
Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark Confirmation Hearing, Apr. 22, 2009
May 14, 2010 Discovery closed
May 14, 2010 On May 14, 2010 President Barack Obama via Attorney General Eric Holder instructed then Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark to ignore the U.S. Constitution in Leader v. Facebook in order to protect Obama's 47 million ''Likes'' on Facebook Scandal

Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark was ERIC HOLDER'S MAN assigned to protect Obama's 47 million "likes" on Facebook: Facebook filed new on-sale bar claim (102(b)). Leader objected. Stark overruled and allowed Facebook to pursue the new claim while denying Leader the right to prepare defenses. No hard evidence supported Facebook. Scandalously, Stark affirmed only a Cooley-fabricated video snippet taken out of context and a single 60% blanked-out questionnaire. Not a single piece of engineering evidence was presented. Facebook did not even present an expert witness! Nothing. Nada. Zilch. (Editorial: Herein is perhaps the most telling proof of collusion. The verdict for Facebook was predetermined, so the lack of proof didn't matter.)

Facebook Like button Stark abused Leader's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Leader had a constitutional right to prepare new defenses to Facebook's new claim (which flip-flopped from a pre-trial "false marking" claim that Leader had no patent to, OK, Leader has a valid patent and tried to sell it too soon—on-sale bar).[31]

Stark also abused judicial discretion. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) dictate that late-stage claims can only be made "with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Justice did not require abusing Leader's due process rights to help Facebook. In short, Stark blocked Leader from preparing a defense with additional evidence, expert witnesses, source code, third party testimony, etc. Pfaff and Group One specified a detailed analysis of alleged offers. None of that happened.[32]

Stark promised Congress to decide ". . . carefully and impartially." He deceived Congress in his Grand Bargain with Obama and Cooley Godward in exchange for his appointment.
3 weeks before trial . . .

Jun. 24, 2010

The Grand Bargain

Judge Farnan withdraws suddenly as presiding trial judge. Judge Leonard P. Stark assigned. Cooley’s Donald K. Stern certainly is involved in this decision since (a) he is Obama’s Justice Department advisor, and (b) the judge seat is in Vice President Joe Biden’s State of Delaware where he has been blocking Republican nominees for years.

Judge Stark allowed Facebook to amend their claims and add on-sale bar; Judge Stark blocked Leader from conducting additional discovery.

The Grand Bargain to gain his judgeship from Obama?
Jul. 19-28, 2010 Leader v. Facebook trial. Split verdict. Facebook guilty on 11 of 11 counts, and Leader's expert witness decimated Facebook's prior art arguments.[43] Despite the overwhelming proof of the opposite, Facebook prevailed on a single portion of the decision in which the jury admitted that they did not follow the jury instructions or precedent law for the proper testing of on-sale bar claims. Tellingly, Judge Stark heard this admission, yet forbade the attorneys from using this admission in their post trial pleadings. [44]
8 days later
Aug. 5, 2010 Leonard P. Stark confirmed as U.S. federal judge. Refuses to overturn the jury on on-sale bar in post-trial motions. Fails to follow well-settled precedent law for assessing on-sale bar. Pfaff, Group One, Carr, The Dictionary Act. In short, the split decision stands.

In short, Facebook is using Leader's invention. And, Facebook failed to offer any evidence of on-sale bar, yet was supported by Judge Leonard P. Stark nonetheless.[44]
Table 1 – Timeline for "The Grand Scheme" including "The Grand Bargain" for a judgeship in Leader v. Facebook between President Obama, Cooley Godward LLP and then Magistrate Judge Leonard P. Stark.

Do the circumstances above “avoid the appearance of impropriety in all actions” as dictated by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges[12] and Judicial Employees?[13]

In exchange for delivering Facebook's on-sale bar verdict, Leonard P. Stark was rewarded a judgeship . . . in VP Joe Biden’s district

Evidently Stark was rewarded for protecting Obama’s “likes” on Facebook. Pundits thought the Federal Circuit would fix Stark’s mistake, but they waved their hands too. The appeals process was a total fraud which we have analyzed extensively.

Barack Obama photo posted on Facebook
Obama posts a picture of himself on
70% of his Facebook posts, averaging
1.3 posts per day, along with calls
to action for his 47 million followers
incl. "like," "share," "sign,"
"join," and "donate." No politician
in history has had such reach.
Does Obama covet his 47+ million “likes” so much he’ll break the law to keep them?

President and Michelle Obama have over 47 million “likes” on Facebook from which he makes money. In addition to his salary and perks as President, Organizing for Action raised $4.8 million[14] in the first three months of 2013 with the help of his “share,” “like,” “join” and “sign” Facebook solicitations. In the last two months, he has posted more than once a day on his Barack Obama Facebook page.[15] The majority of these posts contain his picture. What politician in history has had such an opportunity? Is this reach like a drug to which Obama and his handlers are addicted?

By comparison, Facebook “likes” as of mid-May 2013: Mitt Romney 11 million, George W. Bush 3.5 million, Fox News 3 million, Bill & Hillary Clinton 1.4 million, CBS News 880,000, Joe Biden 575,000, and John Boehner 373,000.

Cooley Godward LLP: Consiglieres (mob counsel) for the White House?

Besides Obama’s evident motive to protect his 47 million Facebook “likes,” the Federal Election Commission[16] reports that 62 Cooley Godward attorneys donated almost $100,000 to the Obama campaign during the 2012 election. Two more donated to Organizing for Action.[17] That makes a total of 64 Cooley employees who paid to play in Obama's sandbox.

Michael Rhodes, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP bag man?
Michael Rhodes
Cooley Godward LLP
Bag Man?
Two of those donating attorneys, Cooley’s Michael Rhodes and Elizabeth Stameshkin, are Facebook’s attorneys in Leader v. Facebook. New information reveals that Michael Rhodes[18] was also Cooley lead counsel for Tesla Motors, the recipient of $465 million in Obama “green energy” stimulus funds. His hiring at Tesla Motors occurred five months before the Leader v. Facebook trial, and two months before magistrate judge Leonard P. Stark allowed Facebook to add the new on-sale bar claim after the close of discovery and block Leader from building defenses.

What kind of access did Cooley’s Rhodes have to the $645 million in Tesla Motors funds? Was this his slush fund for buying judicial employees and judges?

Two other donating attorneys, Cooley’s Ronald Lemieux and Roel Campos, are very well connected. Lemieux is directly associated with Cooley’s Heidi Keefe and Mark Weinstein, two more Leader v. Facebook attorneys, in Cooley-China.[19] Investigators have learned that Facebook’s director and financier James W. Breyer and Accel Partners LLP are shifting portions of their post-Facebook-IPO tens of billions of dollars to China, alongside John P. Breyer, James W’s father, and IDG Capital Partners where James W is also a partner. AFI first broke the news of the identity of James W. Breyer’s father which does not appear in any of his public biographies. His father has been quietly building a financial empire in China for 20 years.

Cooley’s Roel Campos[20] is more interesting. He only recently left Cooley. He is a former Securities & Exchange Commissioner who presided over the Facebook 12(g) exemption from the 500-shareholder rule. His SEC Chief Counsel was Thomas J. Kim, who failed to disclose that he worked for James W. Breyer’s lobbying firm Latham & Watkins LLP when Breyer ran the National Venture Capital Association 2003-2004. These were the same years Zuckerberg / Facebook / Fenwick & West’s theft of Leader’s technology occurred. We wrote about this earlier in our post The Real Facebook, A Portrait of Corruption.

One in six Russian entrepreneurs is in jail because they will not pay bribes to corrupt officials

May 25, 2013, BBC News—If Facebook's handlers have their way, America will soon be paying homage to oligarchs in Moscow, India, China and Brazil, using Facebook Credits and following their wishes. Your Benevolencies? (Editorial: Beware of Chinese, Russian, Indian and Brazilian money purchasing U.S. companies. This is part of THE GRAND SCHEME, and a great way to launder dirty money outside the reach of U.S. law.)

Russian Entrepreneur Dmitry Malov who is in jail because he would not pay a bribe

If you are tempted to think that Russia can teach us anything right now about honest business, read the experience of Russian entrepreneur, Dmitry Malov.[29]

Malov employs 300 people. He was directed by the FSB (Russian secret police) to sell his dairy business to an unknown buyer, or face jail. He refused and was accused of fraud. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison, just as the FSB officers had threatened. He now sits in jail.

This is what awaits America if Facebook's handlers succeed in corrupting our judges and institutions.

This exemption was used by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and State Street Corporation and opened the door for a private market in Facebook stock that raised billions of dollars from Russian oligarchs with ties to the Kremlin.[21] This exemption also pumped Facebook’s pre-IPO value to $100 billion. These banks received $32 billion in bank bailout funds overseen by Lawrence “Larry” Summers, Obama’s bailout chief.

Curiously, Summers failed to disclose to the American public when he took that job that two of his protégés, Yuri Milner and Sheryl Sandberg, were Goldman clients and were running DST-Moscow and Facebook respectively. Such duplicity is illegal when not disclosed. In other words, if a party sits on both sides of a transaction (his friends decide who gets the money, and his friends receive and spend the money), then if he does not disclose that to both parties, he is double-dealing.

Bottom line is that Cooley's Roel Campos did the bidding of former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers who was working on ways to get (a) bailout funds, (b) stimulus funds and (c) "pump & dump" IPO funds to his protégés in Palo Alto (Sandberg) and Moscow (Milner)—a triple dip. This redefines the verb "fleece."

With Summers in the picture, any Obama assistance or involvement in Facebook is a conflict of interest by definition. But, as we have just seen with Obama's directive to Eric Holder not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, this administration apparently believes the U.S. Constitution is simply a pay-to-play prop to fool the masses. What happened to Obama's oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God?"

Cooley’s Donald Stern advises the Obama Justice Department

Another donating attorney, Cooley’s Donald Stern,[22] was a member of Obama’s Department of Justice transition team. Such a Cooley insider is only ever one step away from undue influence and corruption. At this point, can any reasonable person believe the line was not crossed?

Cooley’s McBee Strategic alliance dispensed Obama’s "green" stimulus billions to Solyndra and BrightSource that blew threw $2 billion between them

McBee Strategic logoTwo more donating attorneys, Cooley’s Tom Amis and Erich Veitenheimer, represent Cooley in the Cooley-McBee Strategic[23] alliance formed to help companies obtain Obama’s “green energy” stimulus funds. This alliance occurred during the Leader v. Facebook case too. Cooley and McBee funneled Obama-stimulus funds[24] to Solyndra ($535 million)[25] and BrightSource ($1.6 billion).[26] That money is all spent. Where did it go? Dubai? British Virgin Islands? Beijing? Bangalore? Cayman Islands? A more interesting question is how many Leader v. Facebook judges, judicial employees, their families and friends have their names on these accounts? What politicians are on the take too?

Cooley-McBee Strategic’s Mike Sheehy lobbied for BrightSource and worked for Nancy Pelosi

McBee Strategic, Cooley Godward LLP, Michael Rhodes, Nancy Pelosi, Obama, Mike Sheehy collusion The tangled web gets worse. McBee Strategic disclosed that one of its lobbying agents for BrightSource is Mike Sheehy.[27] Sheehy was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s National Security Adviser for six years prior to joining McBee in March 2009.

Did Cooley's Donald Stern Justice Department adviser "have an understanding" regarding Stark's prospective judge seat re. the Leader v. Facebook outcome?

Bottom line, Michael Rhodes, Facebook’s lead attorney in Leader v. Facebook, was a heartbeat away from the Executive Branch and Department of Justice “transition” team during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings. Judge appointments, including Leonard P. Stark, were on the agenda. Was Stark given a choice to rule for Facebook no matter what, or kiss his appointment goodbye since Cooley had their man, Donald Stern, in the White House calling these shots?

On May 1, 2013, just a few weeks ago, about the time his name surfaced as a key player in this judicial corruption scandal, Stern unceremoniously left Cooley and joined Yurko, Salvesen & Remz, P.C. as "Of Counsel." This means that he was in such a hurry to leave Cooley that he did not have time to negotiate a partner agreement with Yurko, which is a very small Boston law firm. This is an extremely odd move for such a prominent attorney with a fat Rolodex.[47]

Veteran Judge Joseph Farnan appears to have been forced into retirement one (1) month before trial so that Stark/Cooley could take over the proceedings. Those close to the case say Farnan had told the attorneys he was looking forward to the trial, then suddenly, he was sidelined after carrying the ball right up to the brink of trial.

Juxtiposition of The White House and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Like lemmings, the Federal Circuit appeals court judges, their clerk, then the U.S. Supreme Court followed suit. Judicial financial reports reveal that two of the three judge Federal Circuit panel held stock in Facebook during the proceedings. These judges had a direct financial interest in decision favorable to Facebook. At this point Cooley and Facebook’s other handlers were sending a signal to a shocked legal world that they were in control of the federal appeals process . . . so everyone might as well shut up and simply admire their abuse of power.

FOIA Request: Patent Office invokes Executive Privilege

Leader v. Facebook
U.S. Patent Office feeds designs to the highest bidder, in Leader v. Facebook's case, that would be Facebook
"The Great Patent Office Payoff"
On March 12, 2013, the U.S. Patent Office claimed “executive communication privilege” in blocking disclosure of Freedom of Information Act documents requested by a U.S. citizen. Here is our April 15 update on the FOIA request – The Real Facebook, A Portrait of Corruption. With the invocation of executive privilege, President Obama signaled that he had interfered himself in the Leader v. Facebook case.

Are we going to find out that Obama instructed the Patent Office to ignore well-settled legal precedent? That would be the same logic he used to instruct Attorney General Eric Holder not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.

Facebook’s Cooley attorneys are tied at the hip to Obama. Obama uses Facebook to communicate daily with 47 million followers. Facebook makes millions from advertising on the Obama fan pages. Facebook’s Cooley attorneys have been beneficiaries of Obama’s “green energy” stimulus funds. It now seems that Cooley may have even helped dispense Obama’s “green” in collusion with McBee Strategic.

Is Cooley Godward LLP running the White House?

As this new Justice Department and Patent Office scandal emerges, will the combined scandals bring down this administration?

Q: How many Cooley Godward Kronish LLP attorneys does it take to become a kind of mob counsel (consigliere)[28] to the Obama Administration?
A. At least 64, apparently.
Will the mainstream media finally wake up to the charades and manipulation of the press by some very corrupt power mongers?

Drip, drip, drip.

Stay vigilant. Let’s keep pulling on the strings of this scandal until we unravel it. In this post, we have given you more names to add to your corruption watch list.

* * *



  • The Great Patent Office Payoff.
  • McBee Strategic logo. McBee Strategic LLC.

[1] Wayne Allyn Root. "President Obama – the CEO who knows nothing." Fox News, May 21, 2013. Accessed May 25, 2013 <> ("The reason I believe he is lying is because I've never heard of a CEO who knows nothing going on under his command.").

[2] Jeremy W. Peters. "I.R.S. Official Invokes 5th Amendment at Hearing." The New York Times, May 22, 2013. Accessed May 25, 2013 <> ("In follow-up questioning by Representative Gerald E. Connolly, a Virginia Democrat, Mr. Shulman offered what he said was one of the many plausible explanations why he would have visited the White House [118 times]. 'The Easter Egg Roll with my kids,' he said.").

[3] John Parkinson. "Darrell Issa to Lois Lerner: Assertion of 'Fifth' Invalid." ABC News, May 23, 2013. Accessed May 25, 2013 <> ("'Drip, drip, drip,' Boehner, R-Ohio, said. 'Every day there’s something new.'").

[4] Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 16, 212) <>.

[5] Z. Byron Wolf. "President Obama Instructs Justice Department to Stop Defending Defense of Marriage Act calls Clinton-Signed Law 'Unconstitutional.'" ABC News, Feb. 23, 2011. Accessed May 25, 2013 <>.

[6] "Cooley Partner Donald K. Stern Named Advisor to U.S. Department of Justice Transition Team." Cooley LLP, Dec. 5, 2008. Accessed May 25, 2013 <> ("Cooley Godward Kronish announced today that litigation partner Donald K. Stern has been named as an advisor to President-elect Barack Obama's transition team for the U.S. Department of Justice.").

[7] Conflict of interest. Wikipedia. Accessed May 25, 2013 <> ("A conflict of interest (COI) occurs when an individual or organization is involved in multiple interests, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation for an act in another.").

[8] Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 67, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1646-47 (1998) <,_Inc.>; See also Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 525 US 55 (Supreme Court 1998) <,36>.

[9] "President Obama Nominates Judge Leonard Stark and Amy Totenberg to the United States District Court." The White House, Mar. 17, 2010. Accessed May 25, 2013 <>.

[10] Leonard Stark. Judgepedia. Accessed May 25, 2013 <>.

[11] Tesla Motors. U.S. Dept. of Energy Loan Programs Office, Jan. 2010. Accessed May 20, 2013 <>.

[12] Code of Conduct for United States Judges. United States Courts. Accessed May 25, 2013 <>.

[13] Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees. United States Courts. Accessed May 25, 2013<>.

[14] Organizing for Action: Our Founding Members. ORGANIZING for ACTION. Apr. 12, 2013. Accessed by May 25, 2013 <>.

[15] Barack Obama. Facebook Fan Page. Accessed May 25, 2013 <>; See also Apr. 16, 2013 capture online <>

[16] Barack Obama Contributors, 2012 Federal Election Cycle, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP donors through 12/31/2012 <>.

[17] Organizing for Action. Id.

[18] Zusha Elinson. “Michael Rhodes (Cooley Godward LLP, Tesla Motors).” The Recorder,, Feb. 22, 2010 <>. See also <>.

[20] "SEC Commissioner Roel C. Campos Joins Cooley." Cooley Godward LLP, Aug. 23, 2007. Accessed May 20, 2013 <>; Also online at <>.

[21] Simon Goodley. "Facebook investor DST comes with ties to Alisher Usmanov and the Kremlin, Three Goldman Sachs bankers, Alexander Tamas, Verdi Israelian and John Lindfors joined DST over the past three years." The Guardian, Jan. 4, 2011. Accessed May 25, 2013 <>.

[22] "Cooley Partner Donald K. Stern Named Advisor to U.S. Department of Justice Transition Team." Cooley LLP, 12/05/2008. Accessed May 21, 2013 <>; See also <>.

[23] "McBee Strategic and Cooley Align to Advise Companies Seeking Access to Clean Energy Technology Public Sector Financing. Bloomberg, Apr. 23, 2009. Accessed May 23, 2013 <>. See also <>.

[24] "OUR PROJECTS – The Financing Force Behind America’s Clean Energy Economy." U.S. Department of Energy Loans Programs Office. Accessed May 23, 2013 <>.

[25] "Obama’s Solyndra Problem." FACTCHECK.ORG, Oct. 7, 2011. Accessed May 20, 2013 <>; See also Soyndra, Inc. Discontinued Projects. U.S. Dept. of Energy Loan Programs Office. Accessed May 20, 2013 <>.

[26] "DOE Finalizes $1.6 Billion Loan Guarantee for BrightSource Energy." U.S. Dept. of Energy Loan Programs Office, Apr. 11, 2011. Accessed May 20, 2013 <>.

[27] McBee Strategic, Inc. LD-1 Disclosure Form, LOBBYING REGISTRATION, 11/20/2009. Accessed May 23, 2013 <>.

[28] Consigliere. Google. Accessed May 25, 2013 <> ("An adviser, esp. to a crime boss.").

[29] Daniel Sandford. "Entrepreneurs face global challenges: Russian entrepreneur 'jailed for not selling.'" BBC News, May 25, 2013. Accessed May 25, 2013 <> ("Business Solidarity, an organisation that works to protect small businessmen, estimates that one in six Russian entrepreneurs is in jail."). Also online at <>.

[30] S. HRG. 111-695, PART 6 - CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS, Leonard P. Stark Confirmation Hearing. United States Senate, 111th Congress, 2nd Session, Apr. 22, Apr. 28, and May 13, 2010, Part 6, Serial No. J-111-4, S. Hrg. 111-695, Pt. 6, Y 4.J 89/2, GPO Abstract, PDF | HTML, p. 104.

[31] Judge Leonard P. Stark's court in Leader Techs, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D. Del. 2011) ignored the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Wikipdeia. Accessed Jun. 3, 2013 <> ("Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law."); See also Fifth Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Cornell University Law School <>; 14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, Cornell University Law School <> ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."); Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 16, 212) <>.

[32] Judge Leonard P. Stark's court in Leader Techs, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D. Del. 2011) ignored the rules on "Amended and Supplemental Pleadings, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2)" <> ("15(a) . . . (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires."); See also Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 16, 212) <>.

[33] Matthew J. Moore joins Latham & Watkins. "Intellectual Property Litigation Partner Joins Latham & Watkins in Washington, D.C." Latham & Watkins LLP. Accessed Jun. 4, 2013; See also <>.

[34] The Federal Circuit Bar Association's Request for Reissue of Order as Precedential Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 32.1(c). Leader Technologies, Inc., v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 2011-1366 (Fed. Cir.), Sep. 11, 2012, filed by Edward R. Reines, Weil, Gotshal & Manages LLP <>

[35] S. HRG. 109–397, PART 5 - HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE, Kimberly A. Moore Confirmation Hearing, 111th Congress, 2nd Session, Jun. 28, 2006, Serial No. Serial No. J–109–4, Pt. 5, Y 4.J 89/2, GPO Abstract, PDF | HTML, p. III, V, 53, 55-91.

[36] S. HRG. 112–72, PART 4 - HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE, Evan J. Wallach Confirmation Hearing, 112th Congress, 1st Session, Sep. 7, 2011, Serial No. Serial No. J–112–4, Pt. 5, Y 4.J 89/2, GPO Abstract, PDF | HTML, pp. III, IV, VII, 1, 6, 7, 9-91.

[37] Case Summary, Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Hemcon, Inc., Case No. 2010-1548 (Fed. Cir.), PACER.CAFC.USCOURTS.GOV. Accessed Jun. 5, 2013 <>;

[38] Submission by Amicus Curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association in Support of Neither Party regarding Plaintiffs'-Appellees' Motion for Recusal of Chief Judge Randall R. Rader, Aug. 3, 2010, Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. US Patent and Trademark Office, 653 F. 3d 1329 (Fed. Cir.) <>. Also online at <> and <>.

[39] Case No. 2010-1406, ASSOCIATION FOR MOLECULAR v. U.S. PATENT OFFICE, Federal Circuit docket, annotated. Accessed Jun. 7, 2013 <>.

[41] Deposition of Michael F McGowan, Facebook Forensic Expert, Paul D. Ceglia v. Mark E. Zuckerberg, Jul. 19, 2012, 1:10-cv-00569-RJA (W.D.N.Y. 2010) <">; See also Deposition of Bryan J. Rose, Facebook Forensic Expert, Jul. 18, 2012, Paul D. Ceglia v. Mark E. Zuckerberg, 1:10-cv-00569-RJA (W.D.N.Y. 2010) <>.

[42] Chief Justice John G. Roberts, 2011 Facebook-related investments. Americans For Innovation, Jun. 11, 2013 <> (includes screen captures of the following Facebook-related companies who directly benefited from Justice Roberts' legal decisions in favor of Facebook in Leader v. Facebook: Accel Partners, IDG Capital Partners, Groupon, Zynga, Fidelity Growth Company K Fund, Fidelity Spartan 500 Index INST, Fidelity Contrafund Fund K, TR Price Prime Res Fund, TR Price SCi Tech Fund and Fidelity Low Priced Stock K Fund); See also "Chief Justice John G. Roberts failed to disclose a mountain of conflicts in Leader v. Facebook, Roberts’ holdings included with close ties to the Kremlin, and Tesla Motors, whose counsel is Michael Rhodes is Facebook’s lead litigator in Leader v. Facebook (Cooley Godward LLP—whose 'Man in The White House' is Donald K. Stern)." Americans For Innovation, Jun. 10, 2010. Accessed Jun. 11, 2013 <>.

[43] ''Facebook's expert witness [Dr. Saul Greenberg] practiced 'dark arts.''' Origin of Facebook's technology? Aug. 23, 2011 <>.

[44]Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 12-617 (U.S. Supreme Court Nov. 16, 212) <>; See also Verdict Form, Summary of Post-Trial Motions in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., CV-08-862-JJF-LPS (D. Del. 2008). Leader Technologies. Accessed Jun.13, 2013

[45] "Leader's lawyers dismantle Facebook’s 'schizophrenic' response brief." Origin of Facebook's technology? Nov. 28, 2011 <>; See also "Federal Circuit Appeal Hearing confirms this blog's analysis that Facebook relies on smoke and mirrors." Id., Mar. 15, 2012 <>.

[46] "James W. Breyer’s father John P. Breyer is IDG Capital Partners, Beijing, China’s Chairman," AFI Contributor, May 8, 2013 <>.

[49] Weil Gotshal Patent Lawyer Directory Showing Conflicts of Interest at the Federal Circuit in Leader v Facebook, Weil Gotshal Manges LLP. Accessed Jun. 18, 2013 <>.

[50] "Chief Judge Rader Swears In New Administrative Patent Judges,'', Jan. 25, 2012. Accessed Jun. 24, 2013<>; See also <> (further evidence of the erosion of impartiality between the U.S. Patent Office and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals).


  1. Comment by: Lisa


    As of Tuesday morning, Amazon sales of George Orwell's Dystopian novel 1984 had jumped 6,021 percent in just 24 hours, to No. 213 on Amazon's bestseller list. As NPR's Alan Greenblatt recently pointed out, many people have found uncomfortable resonances between Orwell's "Big Brother" state and the news that broke last week of U.S. government surveillance programs.

    I am reminded that this is exactly what Mike McKibben, Al Stern and Professor Hy Berman warned of:

    The world is following a pack of devils, it would appear.


  2. K. CraineJune 15, 2013 at 8:50 AM
    Comment from: Law Blogger


    Just ran across this article in our SF Biz Times this morning.

    The article about Gordon K. Davidson and Fenwick & West LLP says "Fenwick has a history with Facebook, having handled the social media company’s corporate work since 2007."

    Well we know now that is misdirection since (a) Fenwick has been representing James W. Breyer and Accel Partners/KKR since the late 1990's--the puppet masters, (b) Fenwick represented Leader Technologies in 2002-2003 and had Leader's social media source code in their files according to the company, (c) Fenwick represented Marc Andreessen on two social patents he filed in 2005 which have been assigned to Facebook, and (d) the Fenwick attorney working on the Andreessen patents, Christopher P. King Reg. 60,985, was assigned to the Zuckerberg patents in early 2012, but changed his name to "Christopher-Charles King."

    More lies and misdirection.

    P.S. Don't worry, I made a PDF of the article just in case it mysteriously disappears from the web (as things seem to do out here on a daily basis; Silicon Valley should be renamed The Fourth Reich) and am emailing it to you now.

    1. Here's the article from Law Blogger with a full citation:

      ''Facebook likes Fenwick's legal eagles for IPO'' by Eric Young, San Francisco Business Times, Feb. 2, 2012, 11:26am PST. Accessed Jun. 15, 2013; See also

  3. omment by: snoop dog

    Hey folks, guess what I just discovered? Donald K. Stern, the Cooley attorney advising Obama just jumped ship on May 1, 2013 and landed at some little Podunk law firm in Boston where he is "of counsel" which means he's not even a partner! That's just about the time AFI first identified Stern as a player in this scandal. Why would he leave Washington where he is advising the President on Justice Department policy, and go to a dinky little firm that doesn't even have a proper website, if there is not something wrong? I think we know what's wrong 8-O

    Are Stern's and Cooley's chickens coming home to Washington and smelling the place up? LOL.

  4. Just discovered that AMBER H. ROVNER of WEIL GOTSCHAL LLP has recently changed her name to "AMBER L. HAGY." So, she is listed in various legal filings over the last decade at:

    1. AMBER L. NAGY (current)
    2. AMBER H. ROVNER (Leader v. Facebook and Microsoft filings)
    3. AMBER HATFIELD (Zoominfo)

    Zoominfo also has her listed as an attorney for Thompson & Knight LLP.

    Is anybody else starting to twitch? This is shades of Fenwick & West's attorney Christopher P. King changing his name to Christopher-Charles King especially for Facebook. Did these people lose their birth certificates? ... no, I won't go there.

    AMBER H. ROVNER (aka AMBER L. NAGY aka AMBER HATFIELD) and EDWARD R. REINES were hired by the Federal Circuit Bar Association to file the motion to absolve the judges of conflicts in Leader v. Facebook. They withdrew it after Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam's blistering response where she took them to the woodshed over ethics. Then, Jan Horbaly didn't docket the FCBA's motion or Dr. A's response. But, here it is thanks to the AFI community:

    Also remember that WEIL GOTSCHAL LLP is JUDGE KIMBERLY A MOORE'S former client (hmmmm, she didn't disclose that either).

    AMBER H. ROVNER aka AMBER HATFIELD aka AMBER L. NAGY is a big company woman. She represents Microsoft, Samsung, 3M, Intel, Rockewell, Ericksen... all big infringers with lots of money to buy off judges.

    AMBER ROVNER/HATFIELD/HAGY appears to be a big money lawyer-goat. Judging from her names changes, apparently she was married to her work. I gotta ask, how does someone acquire a DIFFERENT MIDDLE INITIAL all of a sudden? Trying to avoid investigation search engines?

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Really?

      This woman was counsel on a single amicus brief that was denied a few days after being filed. That's the extent of her involvement in this case and yet you think that she has now changed her name to avoid search engines? And her former name appears right there on her Weil profile? Yes, that makes perfect sense.

      And you really think that Mr. Stern has ever even heard of Leader? He's leaving Cooley in order to hide from this blog? Unbelievable. A more reasonable explanation may be that he has made his millions and is now ready for a more low key, easy lifestyle where he doesn't have to bill 3,000 hours per year. The idea that his move (announced publicly) has anything to do with Leader is really delusional.

    3. Yawn. Corrupt people always make such haughty comments and label those who expose them as "delusional." That way they can avoid the hard, cold, condemning FACTS.

      Your knowledge of the supposed true motives of all these people is uncanny.

    4. Typo:

      AMBER L. NAGY (current) should read:


  5. Sigh. This last comment is once again full of misinformation.

    Amber is not hiding anything. She recent got married. In fact, look at her official Weil profile. It actually lists, right there on the page, her former name. So much for the grand conspiracy theory.

    The federal circuit bar association never withdrew its motion. In fact, if you look at the actual docket, you will see that the federal circuit DENIED the motion very shortly after it was filed. And yes, this is the same panel that included Judge Moore, who was supposedly conflicted. And this motion came months after the federal circuit denied Leader's appeal, and was the first time that Weil Gotschal ever appeared in this action. So exactly how was there a conflict??

    1. We fully expected this excuse. We've seen these sneaky "plausible deniability" excuses at every turn from Facebook attorneys. This comment betrays you. We think you are Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly trying to fix your corrupt practices. Valerie White your staffer gave you away. Your tricky games with the rules of procedure hang you. Dr. Arunachalam's motions were filed timely. That's why we posted them with the express delivery receipts. We figured you would start making these claims later. The facts condemn you.

  6. Here is the actual docket entry from the federal circuit. And all of Dr. A's motions are also listed on the docket. The federal circuit only provides electronic access to the official case caption, entries of appearance, and certificates of interest. No other documents are posted electronically, so the fact that Dr. A's motions are not online is nothing unusual. In fact, it would be bizarre if they WERE online.

    MOTION: Entry 53 :by Other - Request for reissue of Order as precedential. SERVICE : by Mail on 9/11/2012
    REPLY 1: 9/18/2012 , Entry # 55

    ACTION: Entry 54 :The motion for reissuance of the court's August 10, 2012 order as precedential is denied. Filed: 9/18/2012

    1. So where is the motion for the public to download? Where is Dr. Arunachalam's response to download from the court's PACER site? These clerk notes are the bare minimum to keep you and your collaborators out of jail. We have your number.

  7. The fact that this blog keeps claiming that the clerk of the court failed to docket entries is really just disgusting. The official case docket reflects every single filing, including all of Dr. A's briefs. Why are those briefs not online? Because that is how the Federal Circuit's system is set up. Check any case. Virtually none of the filings are online. I really wish this blog could express opinions that are actually grounded in truth.

  8. Wrong, John!
    I , personally, talked on the telephone with a Ms. Valerie White in the Clerk's office, asking about these such docket filings (as well as FOIA requests on the judges' public holdings info). She assured me that she knew nothing, couldn't find any mention of them electronically or on paper.
    And when she said that it was odd, she wanted to look into it and get back with me; she mysteriously disappeared from her post the next day; I guess she was out of the loop.
    But you could always ask for your FB/NSA buds to pull the phone records if you feel so inclined to verify these facts.

    1. John Craven aka Federal Circuit Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly is doing more damage control for his corrupt practices. He says "Why are those briefs not online? Because that is how the Federal Circuit's system is set up. Check any case. Virtually none of the filings are online. I really wish this blog could express opinions that are actually grounded in truth."

      The law says clerks should go to jail for censoring dockets. Notice the tricky wording? He is splitting hairs between the docket and the underlying pleading that gave rise to the clerk entry... which should INCLUDE the actual pleading. He is admitting here that he censors dockets in other cases too! Amazing that the Monarch in Chief at the Federal Circuit has so twisted the rules that he can randomly decide when a litigant's pleadings should and shouldn't be made available. This is the definition of corruption.

      He thinks he's above the law.

  9. Perhaps non-lawyers would miss this, but there is an astounding admission by Craven/Horbaly here. He says that Rover-Hatfield-Nagy did file the motion on behalf of the Federal Circuit Bar Association. THE LAW REQUIRED HER TO ENTER AN APPEARANCE WITH THE COURT ON AN AMICUS BRIEF. There is no public record on the docket of her appearance. Also, Horbaly admits the court denied it within days. Again, how is it possible that such a denial could occur so quickly? The judges would not have had time to get it, much less review and conference on it. Craven/Horbaly is hoping that no one will notice that he censored the docket here. Isn't it conveeeeenient, as the Church Lady says, that Rovner changed her name to avoid detection by search engines. The re-marriage excuse just gives plausible deniability. Why she changed her name is irrelevant.

    The fact that she did it to help out Craven/Horbaly and that it so conveniently hides the Rovner association with Weil Gotschal and Judge Kimberly A. Moore is the interesting conduct. They're worried about this. Let's keep digging.

    He also wants non-lawyers to think that the fact that Leader was denied is somehow relevant, which it isn't if they were still in the window period for filing a response. The case was still active, despite the whitewash. It is laughable that they want honest people to follow the rules while they play their crooked games.

    Again Craven/Horbaly are hoping to confuse the public with their rules of procedure games. Not this time boys and girls. We're on to your tricky shit lawyer games. Excuse the French.

    Horbaly is running a protection racket at the Federal Circuit court of appeals in my opinion.

    BTW. The way Horbaly has the Federal Circuit docket set up, he can slip in changes to entries at will. We'll probably see all this magically appear now that he is exposed. I have certified records of the earlier censored dockets. House investigators should start by deposing the Federal Circuit staff.

  10. Comment by: SuperSleuth

    When you live with the machinations of bad guys like I do, you learn that they alloperate on the premise of "in confusion there is profit".

    Craven is just doing what bad guys do: practicing misdirection. I can guarantee to you that his arrogant "delusional" comment is hiding a very tight sphincter muscle. Let's make it tighter.

    Somebody in this crowd will start squealing to avoid jail time. I suggest that person(s) should make contact with a staffer for the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform in exchange for immunity.

  11. Comment by: snoop dog

    Ego-driven lawyers like Donald K. Stern (I know I am being redundant) don't leave the power centers of Washington mid-term for the wilds of a Podunk Boston law firm where he doesn't even get designated partner (he's only Of Counsel which is short for We-Have-Issues-But-Are-Willing-To-Give-It-A-Try), unless something is wrong. What's the problem that a Podunk Boston firm is worried about designating a former Cooley advisor to Obama on the Justice Department as a partner in their little firm? Under normal circumstances, he'd be big man on campus. High ego people like that don't hunker down in the rear seat unless they're hiding from the law.

    That doesn't pass the smell test.

  12. Comment by: lisa

    Where's the "avoid the appearance of impropriety?" These people have no shame. Impeachment, disbarment and jail it is then.

  13. Comment by: Judicial Corruption

    Here are the laws Clerk of Court Horbaly and his staff are breaking in my opinion:

    Code of Conduct for Juducial Employees, Canon 3


    18 USC § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally

    "(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

    ****** (b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term "office" does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States." *******


  14. The very first time that this blog mentioned Donald Stern was in June. He left Cooley over a month earlier on May 1, 2013. So tell me how exactly anything here had the remotest thing to do with him? And likewise explain why he would very PUBLICLY announce the move. One who is seeking to get out of the spotlight and avoid implication does not do such a thing.

    The same is true for Ms. Hagy. You claim that she changed her name to avoid search engines. And yet her official Weil profile has her old name right there on the same page. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if she were actually trying to do what you accuse her of.

  15. And let me clarify one last thing. You claim that because documents are not online that this is evidence of censoring. Absolutely false. Most federal courts do not make documents available online. You have to go to the court, pay a copying fee, and get the documents from the court directly. All of the documents in this case are available in this fashion. Nothing has been censored, destroyed, concealed, etc. so all of this conversation about clerk Horably acting improperly is just nonsense. Go to the court, request the documents, and then report back if you still think something sinister is afoot.

  16. And one more. This blog continuously claims that Facebook claimed that all of Zuckerberg's computers/ hard drives were lost. Where is there a piece of discovery that claims this? Or a single letter from Facebook's attorneys to this effect? It doesn't exist. There has never been a shred of evidence to support that claim. Additionally, the deposition testimony does not establish any type of timeline for the 28 hard drives. This is just more innuendo from the Leader crowd.

  17. Comment by: Darren

    If you have all this supposed access to the court record in this case, then why haven't you produced one single bit of information to backup anything you claim? You're fishing and the fish aren't biting. Blather on.

  18. Comment by: surfer dude

    The Zuckster's only defenders are his crowd of crooked lawyers. It's a liar's love fest.

  19. Comment by: Judicial Corruption

    This Craven guy is expecting us to correct him every time he lies to see if he can slip in a lie now and then. The timeline on the hard drives is a tellingly misleading comment. Of course there is a timeline, those drives predate the ConnectU Winklevoss Twins trade secrets case circa 2005.

  20. O Valerie, Valerie, wherefore art thou Valerie?

  21. steve n amy are of course referring to a Federal Circuit (Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly) staffer named Valerie White. Steve called the Clerk's published number to inquire why none of Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam's amicus curiae briefs (Latin for Friend of the Court) in support of Leader Technologies and opposing the evident judge bias had been acknowledged and posted on the court docket by the Clerk. This came after the court denied Dr. Arunachalam's motion within hours of receiving it (the same day).

    Ms. White expressed surprise at the information and said there was no record of having received any motions or briefs from Dr. Arunachalam. When Steve produced Express Mail delivery receipts as proof, Ms. White said something was amiss and would get back to him. When Steve followed up the next morning, Ms. White's phone extension no longer worked and no one knew the new extension. In short, Ms. Valerie White had been muzzled.

    Since the Federal Circuit office is not large, one can reasonably surmise that Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly did the muzzling of his employee who was evidently not part of the Facebook inner circle.

    Here's Steve's original post at DonnaKlineNow!

  22. I don't understand this. If Leader had this technology 10 years ago, why didn't it just launch a competitor to Facebook? I am looking at their patent and at Facebook and they look like completely different things.

  23. There has still never been any evidence that Facebook ever took the position that any hard drives were lost. I have just never seen a shred of evidence to support that accusation. If Facebook actually made such a claim, there would be a motion to compel, correspondence from Facebook attorneys, court documents, etc.

  24. Comment by: bg

    The fish still aren't biting John and Derek. The two of you have still not produced one fact to support Facebook. You are either ignorant, naive, or one of them. You keep trying to change the argument. It's what bad guys do. The Facebook crowd is nothing but a bunch of crooks. Crooks cannot produce evidence to defend their crookedness (unless they fabricate some and buy off judges to accept it, which is what you have done), and you aren't producing any either. What does that make you as a defender of this crookedness, if you are not simply one of them?

  25. Nasdaq also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient legal claim that it was negligent or that it violated securities laws.

    Reuters) - Former Oregon gubernatorial candidate Craig Berkman pleaded guilty on Tuesday to defrauding investors

  26. Again, I hate to have to throw cold water here but that is my burden. It has been well over a year. This matter is truly over. Right or wrong, it is done. There is peace in moving on, and joy in forgiveness. It is time.

  27. Since you now admit to Facebook cabal's thievery and the misdeeds of the others, by wanting forgiveness, you are on the way to recovery. Your next step is to step foward and tell the whole truth to the authorities. Your burden of lies and misdeeds will be lifted and you will feel free! However, I am not sure you are quite ready. There is still more truth that is coming out and you have another lawsuit on your hands. I guess it really is so easy to copy someone else's work!

  28. I'm sorry but you have misinterpreted my comment. I have absolutely no affiliation with Facebook and I am not seeking anything. My suggestion is one of practicality. This matter has been over for over a year. It is done, simply. I have no dog in this hunt but am simply looking at it as a practical third party. The court angle is done. Congress is never going to touch something as small as this. That's just the end of the road. I know it stings but that really is the reality of the situation. Life may be unfair at times. I have no idea if that is the case here. But procedurally, there is nowhere left for this to go. The sooner you come to grips with that, the sooner the healing process can begin.

  29. Mr. Craven, are we really to believe that you have no affiliation with Facebook (whatsoever)? That you are simply looking at it from a "practicality" standpoint? You, sir, play the role of Pontius Pilate quite well.
    If you have no ties with Facebook, then why, sir, do you possess knowledge that only a Facebook insider might possess. How is it that someone who could care less (except from a practicality standpoint) have facts and figures that would take a bystander some time to go research? And why is it, sir, that from a practicality standpoint, you have nothing but negative things to say to the people who are truly trying to fight this "small" thing, as you refer to it as.
    You, Prefect, may wash your hands of Facebook condescension. You may not "have a dog in this hunt"; I don't know.
    But this, sir, I do know; with no dog in this hunt, you seem to troll these woods quite frequently. And this, too, I know...when Pilate washed his hands, and condemned Christ, even Barabbas eventually saw himself for who he was and repented.
    A set of dirty knees is nothing to be ashamed of, John.
    In fact, one might say that it is "quite practical".


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.