e.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"
EVERY federal judge in Leader v. Facebook held stock in Facebook; We need an Inventor Protection Act
English jurist, philosopher, legal and social reformer
The IRS & Leader v. Facebook are scandals linked . . . as expected. Pervasive ties have been uncovered that directly link the former and current personal legal counsels to President Obama, Robert F. Bauer, and his wife, Anita B. Dunn, and their long-time law firm, Perkins Coie LLP, with the SES Deep State shadow government, including Facebook and Google.
Bauer was just identified as the man in the White House who helped direct the targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS. He also counsels Obama's funding raising arm, Organizing For America, which includes multiple donations by many Leader v. Facebook attorneys, esp. Michael Rhodes, Cooley Godward LLP, who was appointed chief counsel to Obama's $465 million "green" energy stimulus recipient, Tesla Motors, prior to the Leader v. Facebook trial. Just search any of these key words and you'll find plenty of news on these actors. AFI researchers are on it. Stay tuned.
Here is a Muckety relationships analysis of Perkins Coie LLP's treachery. Read WSJ (Aug. 01, 2013): "New [Perkins Coie LLP] Links Emerge in the IRS Scandal." See also previous Conflicts of Interests Map among SES shadow government and Facebook already identified.
Readers are reminded that the Patent Office recently claimed Executive Privilege in refusing to release FOIA records. We have just discovered that Perkins Coie LLP is another Facebook attorney firm. They are also attorneys for Microsoft. This association directly ties Obama's legal counsel to undisclosed conflicts of interest on matters regarding Leader v. Facebook. Joseph P. Cutler, Perkins Coie LLP, a Bauer and Dunn partner, represents Facebook in multiple cases, along with Ramsey M. Al-Salam (currently co-defending Facebook in a case with Facebook's Leader v. Facebook attorneys from Cooley Godward LLP), David P. Chiappetta and James R. McCullagh.
SES paramilitary legal operation
Makes Nixon's "Plumbers" look like schoolyard criminals
Cutler's bio has an almost paramilitary tone:
"Joe manages a rapid response enforcement team to vigorously defend clients, such as Facebook, against illegal spamming, phishing, pretexting, and other forms of malicious Internet behavior."
Hackers hiring hackers to stop other hackers from hacking. Priceless. These hackers aiding The President of the United States to break the law. Tragic.
New, Aug. 6, 2013, Perkins Coie (advisor to the PRESIDENT) appears not to know the meaning of conflicts of interest. They chose to represent alleged infringer EasyLink Services as recently as Dec. 2012, even though one of their attorneys had counselled the plaintiff patent holder, J2 Global Communications, previously. Are these people really this morally deficient? Ironically, Robert F. Bauer speaks regularly on the topic of . . . ethics. His title at the Obama White House was "Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform." More misdirection and Orwellianism, to be sure.
Lawrence Summers' Undisclosed
Conflicts Map, 2008.
(Click image to enlarge)
Fed Chairman candidate Lawrence "Larry" Summers tied to Leader v. Facebook corruption.
America Now in a State of Anarchy & Tyranny?
(Jul. 26, 2013)—Based on America's Founding Father John Adam's criteria, Leader v. Facebook proves that America is now in a state of anarchy and tyranny, says feature article at OpenTrial.org written by AFI contributors. Click here to read the article. Also available at. Leader HTML
(Jul. 23, 2013 ) — Message to Congress: Fight Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption—Rescind. Investigate. Sanction. Certify.
Corrupt judges and government officials are in the proverbial cross-hairs of a growing anti-judicial-corruption movement. Calls to arms to combat the systemic corruption exposed by Leader v. Facebook are being made across America. (See the new poster on right. We encourage you to download the poster and display it prominently.) Washington D.C. should be plastered with these posters. The time of judges and attorneys secretly sniggering behind the black robes must end. In a democracy, a judgeship is a sacred trust. That trust has been violated.
(Jul. 17, 2013)—The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the failed district court ruling and judicial misconduct in the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement case. The injustice to Columbus-OH-based inventor Leader Technologies aside, this case also shines a flood light on the "old boy" backrooms of our federal system. Those rooms are in dire need of renovation. Their ethical underpinnings have sheered and the floor has collapsed.
The ethical lapses cannot get any worse than we are witnessing in Leader v. Facebook. EVERY judge who has touched this case holds Facebook stock. If we still value our freedom and our democracy, Congress must step in now to fix this injustice and the endemic problems that caused it. A democracy cannot survive without just judges.
"This is a simple case of theft. The people in power to correct it have been complicit. At a minimum, they were motivated by personal greed. At worst, other coercive forces were at play. Whatever the reason, justice must be served," said a social scientist close to the investigation.
An historian told AFI, "American foreign policy advocates John Withrop's 'city upon a hill' vision of American justice. But, the judicial corruption exposed by Leader v. Facebook is an utter embarrassment. I cringe now when I see our foreign service officers lecturing Afghans on democracy. Who are we to preach about the rule of law when our own Chief Justice can’t get it right?"
An entrepreneur close to this investigation said, "The conduct of Facebook's unscrupulous attorneys and these judges leaves me numb. Why bother building a business if these judges (and their cousin regulators) are just going to take it away based on 'old boy' payola, and not laws? We have become a Banana republic, sad to say."
These sentiments were echoed just today by syndicated columnist Thomas Sowell writing about the fate of the American justice system and referring to the lawlessness of this Administration. “After Zimmerman, is this still America?” by Thomas Sowell, The Patriot-News, Central PA, Jul. 17, 2013.
Trust is hard to build and easy to destroy.
Facebook was contacted for comment, but did not return calls.
Rescind. Investigate. Sanction. Certify.
A group of bipartisan leaders has proposed the Leader Technologies Inventor Protection Act (see documents below). With the stated purpose to "restore public confidence in the patent system, and the justice system in general," the Act has three elements:
- Rescind the corrupted Leader v. Facebook decision,
- Investigate the wrongdoers among the judges and attorneys, and
- Enact new judicial conflict of interest certification procedures.
All patent holders, prospective patent holders and freedom-loving Americans are urged to support this initiative by contacting your Senators and Congressperson and asking for their support and advocacy. The investigators at AFI will be more than happy to package any research they require.
Two different narratives have been created for the Act and the backstory. Here they are:
Fig. 2 – Legistlative summary of the background and key elements of the Leader Technologies Inventor Protection Act. Click here to obtain a direct PDF version.
* * *
Comment
Click "N comments:" on the line just below this instruction to comment on this post. Alternatively, send an email with your comment to afi@leader.com and we'll post it for you. We welcome and encourage anonymous comments, especially from whisteblowers.
I’m sorry but this proposed new law is dead on arrival and would be unconstitutional. Congress does not have the power to override a court decision in this fashion.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that congress has “overruled” the Supreme Court in the past, but only through the passage of a constitutional amendment or by changing a law that was previously interpreted by the Supreme Court. So, for example, the Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear specifically interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and held that because the plaintiff did not file her claim within a 180 day period required by the law itself, her claim failed. Congress reacted to the ruling by enacting a NEW law that allowed for a longer period for claims to be filed.
Here, we have a completely different situation. The whole argument here is that the district court and federal circuit misinterpreted law, i.e. the evidentiary standard of clear and convincing evidence. No one is arguing that the clear and convincing evidence standard is itself unenforceable. And forget the fact that this isn’t even a federal statute—the clear and convincing evidence standard is a massive body of court-made law from thousands of cases. There is no federal statute that could be changed by congress.
And this isn’t really the argument that’s being put forth anyway. The real argument appears to be that the courts and everyone involved with Facebook is corrupt, so the lower court’s decision should be overruled. Congress can’t do that. Congress cannot simply say, “we disagree with a court’s ruling, so we’re overruling it.” That violates separation of powers. That is what Leader is asking congress to do, and that’s unconstitutional.
I suppose it’s possible for Congress to enact a new federal statute that says that clear and convincing evidence means that a court decision cannot be based solely on someone lying under oath (or the jury claiming that someone lied under oath) on the witness stand. But realistically, that is never, ever going to happen. Again, evidentiary standards are based on hundreds of years of precedent and thousands of cases. The idea that Congress would wade into this and try to change a single evidentiary standard is ludicrous. And think of the mayhem that would result. If congress changed this standard in order to change the Leader decision, then it would have to retroactively apply the new standard. Well you can’t retroactively apply a law to only a single case. It would have to be an across the board application, meaning that thousands of cases where the clear and convincing evidence standard applied would have to be reopened and relitigated. Complete mayhem, and it would never happen.
Now I suppose it is possible that Congress could enact a new law that requires pre-litigation disclosure by judges. But that would be prospective and would only affect future cases. It would have absolutely no effect on the Leader case. Because again, if it were retroactive, it would have to be retroactive for thousands of cases across the country. Completely unworkable.
I am constantly mocked on this board when I say that this dispute is over, but I don’t make that claim lightly. Because the Leader decision was factually based, because it ran its course in the courts, and because of the limitations above, that truly is the end of the road. I’m not trying to be crass—only realistic.
My my. Is this the same John Craven who just last week said he did not have a dog in this hunt? Your duplicity betrays you. Also, your view of the constitution is wholly lacking. You have yet to do anything except argue over the games lawyers play. You lawyers are ruining this country and we intend to stop you. This is about justice, not your lawyer paddy cakes in front of your crony judges. We're on to you. Blather away.
DeleteYou are misinterpreting my comment. I am not taking Facebook's side by any stretch. I am simply pointing out that mechanically, procedurally, the proposed legislation is unconstitutional and unworkable. Show me a single instance over the past 200 years where congress has vacated the judgment of a court. There is none, because congress does not have that power. Congress may be able to implement new laws that would affect the future operation of the court, but in terms of a judgment that is already in place, such as the Leader case, congress is powerless. The only way that the judgment could have been vacated would have been if the federal circuit or the Supreme Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court. That did not occur, so there is no remaining avenue for the judgment to be overturned, vacated, or otherwise disturbed. This has nothing to do with the facts or Facebook's position; this is just mechanics and the way that our constitution is set up.
DeleteSpecifically, refer to Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995). There, the Supreme Court held that Congress did not have the power to retroactively order the federal courts to reopen a judgment. Justice Scalia stated that Article III not only gives the federal judiciary the power to rule on cases, but to decide them, subject only to review by superior courts in the Article III hierarchy. “When retroactive legislation requires its own application in a case already finally adjudicated, it does no more and no less than ‘reverse a determination once made, in a particular case.' Such power is clearly contrary to what the framers contemplated in the separation of powers."
DeleteAll bets are off when there is judicial corruption, as here. Corrupt judges don't get the deference of good faith difference of opinion, they get jail. Separation of powers specifically contemplated this situation, and allows the People to override as the final check on such corruption. Obama's first act was an override. So much for these arguments.
DeleteComment by: Judicial Corruption
DeleteFacebook's attorney defenders operate by a double-standard. They cite the Constitution when it is to their advantage, then violate Leader's constitutional rights the rest of the time. They want it both ways, whatever titillates their seared consciences. Priceless.
Separation of powers, John? Really? Like when Obama didn’t like the outcome f the Zimmerman trial? He sent his lead lap dog to attack the court’s decision, and, with help of his buddies, to gin up racial tensions.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as far as Congressional authority goes, the constitution states that Congress shall oversee all goings on in the Judicial and Executive branches. That even though the Judicial branch interprets the law, Congress may, at times, intercede when any law has been usurped, or if a question of constitutionality has occurred. And, clearly, Leader v Facebook is book marked with red flags all over the place, from evidentiary proceedings, judicial conflicts of interests, improper influencing of the courts, by your buddies at Facebook, and foreign nationals. This, to us, John, reeks and begs of Congressional inquiry!
And, once again, with no dog in this hunt, you just keep wagging your tail from tree top to tree top! Don’t ya?
And, furthermore, why do you insist on continually apologizing when you have absolutely no stake in the outcome of this whole fiasco???! The skunks are going to be driven out by us dogs; and you can smell it coming, can’t you?…..
Every corruption blog in which I have participated seems to have a John Craven assigned apologist for the bad guys. This one is no different. The pattern is the same. They cannot win on the facts, so they try and change the subject.
ReplyDeleteCraven refers to "mayhem." The mayhem created here is created by the Facebook Cabal who are corrupting our business and legal systems. Leader supporters are working to fix the mayhem these people have created. But of course, he (or she) labels the good as mayhem. Typical. The only mayhem it creates is in the halls of corruption. Bring it on.
No one should be fooled by the separation of powers issue. That separation assumes good faith and honest debate, not corruption. When a branch acts corruptly, it is the constitutional duty of the others to investigate and remedy. That is the "checks and balances" established by the Founding Fathers. Also, Craven talks out of his nether parts. The sample letter in this post even cites a recent example where Congress overrode a Supreme Court decision. It was Obama's first bill signed into law. Did anyone see any "mayhem" in the streets as a result of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? So much for Craven's silly hand waiving.
Did anyone catch how this self-proclaimed non-lawyer waxed suddenly eloquent on things only a corrupt attorney would care about? His bubble is getting popped. The prison system is about to get more crowded. When people are bad for this long, and have hurt so many people, prison is the only remedy to get them out of general society.
Comment by: Judicial Corruption
ReplyDeleteI agree that there should be no exemptions to the Conflicts of Interest Certification for judges. Such exemptions assume good faith on the part of the requester and the receiver and are intended for MINOR variants to a general policy. However, the Facebook Cabal has made a mockery of exemptions. Look what they did with the 500-shareholder rule, and the loophole for the insiders to dump over $6 billion on Day 3 of the IPO. In short, they used exemptions as their excuse for wanton sin.
For example, the 500-shareholder rule. It was designed to stop unscrupulous market makers from forming companies, then selling stock willy nilly without any oversight as to the promises they are making and who they are selling to. Good faith exemptions to these rules were allowed only for minor tweeks based on unique circumstances, not for major wholesale revision of the policy.
What Larry Summers, Fenwick & West LLP, Gibson Dunn LLP, Cooley Godward LLP, Sheryl Sandberg, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Thomas J. Kim, Donald K. Stern and Facebook did was essentially BLOW UP THE EXEMPTION IN A WILLFUL AND WANTON BREACH OF THE POLICY. They ordered their homie inside the SEC, Chief Counsel Thomas J. Kim, to grant them the exemption, then they used it to sell BILLIONS in unregulated Facebook stock. People need to go to jail over this IMHO. This is 100 times worse than Bernie Madoff.
If we give judges and judicial employees exemptions to their required financial disclosure, we just open the door back up to abuses. They have already proven that they cannot police themselves, so any exemptions would just destroy the rule, again.
Comment by: Disgusted
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what the Facebook Cabal "homie", US PAtent Judge Stephen C. Siu is attempting to do in this sickening 3rd patent reexam!!! He has no factual basis for rejecting Leader's claims, which are 10 years mature. Instead, he is invoking his power to invalidate as his only reason for doing so. This is a another good example of unchecked power corrupting. Where does Siu live? Perhaps we should apply for a license to demonstrate, then picket his neighborhood. Some metaphorical tar and feathers just might do the trick with these "scoundrels". They need to start feeling the consequences of their misbehavior. They really are morally disgusting.
I just went to my Congressman's webmail form and sent this message. Hope this gives readers ideas about what to say. (I took out several personal comments since we have common friends.) I am also mailing a hard copy.
ReplyDeleteDear NAME:
I would like to meet with you to get your assistance on a matter important to an American innovation company, Leader Technologies, [describe your relationship to/interest in Leader], and to national security, I believe.
Rather than try to summarize here, I include several websites URLs below that are covering the patent infringement battle between Leader and Facebook. These sites also expose the corrosive business and judicial corruption that it has uncovered. Sadly, the corruption includes the U.S. Supreme Court.
A bipartisan group of leaders has just proposed an Act that I/they believe you may have interest in sponsoring and/or supporting. I hope you will. I believe the national security is threatened by what has been exposed in Washington.
Various Congresspersons and Senators have already been briefed, including members of the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform and the Judiciary Committees. Concerned Americans from around the country are making similar contacts to mine with their representatives to gather momentum for this INVENTOR PROTECTION ACT.
Here is background for our meeting:
1. ISSUE OVERVIEW - http://www.scribd.com/doc/154215131/Congressional-Request-for-Inventor-Protection-Act-and-Judicial-Corruption-Investigation-Americans-For-Innovation-Jul-15-2013
2. PROPOSED INVENTOR PROTECTION ACT - http://www.scribd.com/doc/154372653/Proposed-Leader-Technologies-Inventor-Protection-Act-of-2013
3. CALL TO ACTION - http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/07/fix-leader-v-facebook-to-restore.html
4. OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/07/obama-colludes-with-facebook-cabal-to.html
I look forward to meeting you.
Yours sincerely,
Name
Contact Info
(phone, email, address, etc.)
Comment by: Super Sleuth
ReplyDeleteRead this Canadian assessment of American judicial lawlessness:
"America No Longer Has a Functioning Judicial System" by Centre for Research on Globilization, July 22, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-no-longer-has-a-functioning-judicial-system/5343478
Researchers have converted this Canadian GLOBAL RESEARCH ON JUDICIAL CORRUPTION article into PDF in various places. This is a must-read. We recommend that you pass it around widely. It validates our concerns in Leader v. Facebook.
DeleteGoogleDocs:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2SfG2nEsMfqSER2dWlYRmJKUWc/edit?usp=sharing
Scribd:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/155401831/America-No-Longer-Has-a-Functioning-Judicial-System-by-Centre-for-Research-on-Globalization-Canada-July-22-2013
DocStoc:
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/160004585/America-No-Longer-Has-a-Functioning-Judicial-System-by-Centre-for-Research-on-Globalization-(Canada)-July-22-2013
HTML (original):
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-no-longer-has-a-functioning-judicial-system/5343478
Looks like corruption fighters everywhere are finding the edges of this CABAL at the same time. Read this:
ReplyDelete"NSA Whistleblower: NSA Spying On – and Blackmailing – Top Government Officials and Military Officers - Whistleblower Says Spy Agency Targeting Top American Leaders" June 20, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/06/nsa-whistleblower-nsa-spying-on-and-blackmailing-high-level-government-officials-and-military-officers.html
Could explain why Chief Justice John Roberts wimped out on Obamacare and Leader v. Facebook. He's bought, paid for... and coerced (for good measure).
I see that Donna Kline's website has been shut down. More censorship by the cabal?
ReplyDeleteSomeone will reach out to her. Longtime readers will recall that she was hacked at one point by a German website for hackers, spy-something-or-other. If she stays off for very long, we'll re-post her content.
DeleteComment by: corruption-basher
ReplyDeleteDoes this sound familiar? ::
"You may not believe this yet, but the fact is that the US judges operate like criminal gangs. They get together and pick a target, and they can decide to destroy that target if they feel it is a threat, either to themselves or to their paymasters at the big corporations."
http://www.dr-les-sachs.be/
It looks like Donna's site has been completely wiped clean. Unreal the lengths that the cabal will go to. Everything. Just gone. I know the Zuckster was a talented programmer but oh my god.
ReplyDeleteDerek, we cannot jump to that conclusion... yet. She has had technical problems in the past with her Internet Service Provider (although the source of those "problems" was never disclosed by the provider).
DeleteDonna has not responded to phone calls or other messages, which is odd for a journalist. However, it is summer, so she may be on holiday. Let's keep an eye on this.
I’m sorry but you don’t understand what I am saying. Neither Congress nor the president has the power to overrule a court decision, nor to direct the judicial branch to take any particular action with respect to a case that has already been decided.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that Congress has “overruled” certain Supreme Court decisions in the past, but only by changing the underlying law that the Supreme Court had interpreted. For example, you reference the Ledbetter case that was “Obama’s first act in office.” There, the Supreme Court specifically interpreted the Equal Pay Act and, based on a provision of that statute, determined that the plaintiff’s claim was barred because she waited more than 180 days to initiate the suit. Congress responded by CHANGING THE UNDERLYING LAW so that the 180 day period did not exist. So in effect, Congress “overruled” the Supreme Court, but only by changing the law itself. Congress did not direct the Supreme Court to take any particular action, because Congress does not have that power. Here is a good primer on the limitations of Congress. Simply stated, it cannot direct the judiciary to do anything with respect to a particular case. http://joshblackman.com/blog/2010/02/01/congress-does-not-overrule-or-reverse-the-supreme-court-they-just-pass-new-laws-which-the-court-should-interpret/
Here, we have a completely different situation. The argument here is that the courts “got it wrong” when interpreting existing law. There is no argument that the underlying law---i.e. the clear and convincing evidentiary standard—is invalid. The proposed legislation is directly asking Congress to vacate or overrule the federal circuit decision and the Supreme Court’s denial of cert. This is patently unconstitutional, and that is why this legislation has zero chance of ever being passed. Again, I’m not taking sides here. I’m simply trying to educate you on how the Constitution is actually set up, and what is and is not permissible.
Comment by: Palo Alto Pal
DeleteSorry, you people don't get to quote the Constitution only when it suits you. You don't get to bribe judges, then cite the Constitution to protect such criminality. I'll bet you have a PhD at The Facebook Cabal of Constitutional Law. LOL. Those class reunions must be a real gathering of misfits. Let's see how far you get outside your homie-lawyer-judge cocoon.
"I'm trying to educate you on how the Constitution is actual set up" -- LOL. You people in the Facebook Cabal are playing with the dials of our democracy. We're on to your games. THE PEOPLE are going to shut you down and put you away.
You misread us. We want Congress to change the laws to stop your Constitutional criminality.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
—John Adams, 1879 (John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.)
You do not appear to be either moral or religious. And if you consider yourself such, you should think about a refresher course because the Facebook conduct you are supporting is as bad as Adolf Hitler's invasion of privacy and property. Your first test is whether you think that is a true statement or not.
I would also note that the July 24 update regarding alleged Facebook "censorship" is false.
ReplyDeleteMonths ago, Lawless America changed its Facebook profile from a "personal" profile to a "business" profile. You can view this on their own website. Thus, you are no longer "friends" with Lawless America, but you "Like" their page. Whoever sent that screenshot was trying to access the old "friend" page of Lawless America, which Lawless America itself disabled. If you search on Facebook now, you will find Lawless America's "business" page fully accessible. There's no conspiracy here.
Comment by: HAckeR Boy
DeleteWho is this Craven? Orwellianism 101 is to hide illegal conduct behind innocuous phrases like "software update," "security improvement," "upgrade," "old vs. new friend page," "security enhancement," "anti-terrorism." Don't believe a word of it. Anytime Facebook announces a change, count on it being another way to censor unwanted posts, snoop, and invade people's privacy.
Comment by: hACker Boy
DeleteAlmost forgot to mention the granddaddy of all Orwellian excuses for Facebook's immorality: "Upgrade Privacy Settings" LOL.
Remember this rallying cry of immoral people: "In confusion there is profit." They will attempt to throw you off the track every time with confusing explanations that unsuspecting people naturally think are true... until they figure out that they are not. But by then, the damage intended by the immoral is usually already done under the fog THEY created.
We can no longer give these people the benefit of the doubt. We must start assuming they are lying and practicing misdirection. This will speed up our ability to catch them in the act.
Comment by: HACkeR bOy
ReplyDeleteAnother form of Facebook censorship is to break earlier links, so when reader's try to read supporting information about a post, the links no longer work. Of course, those broken links occurred because of "A feature enhancement to improve the user experience." These people must be stopped.
Craven is missing the new reality. The old rules that he and the Facebook club have manipulated are going to come crashing down on them. THE PEOPLE are now demanding that the COURTS choose on their own to right the wrongs that they perpetrated in Leader v. Facebook, otherwise, we are going to demand that CONGRESS enact new laws to fix those despicable decisions. Then, we will demand that CONGRESS investigate, sanction and jail the wrongdoers. Since we can no longer assume good faith and morality from our attorneys and judges (Mr./Ms./Other Craven and his crowd of powermongers), then we must remake the entire JUDICIAL system to weed them out, and make them accountable to THE PEOPLE, and not to themselves and their boys club.
ReplyDeleteBTW. Any court, any time, can reopen a case when material new evidence emerges. This idea that a judge must wait for a motion to do it is wrong. A judge can do it on his or her own initiative. Let's see if these judges have any moral backbone left, or whether they will just make more excuses and cite more procedural claptrap. Yada, yada, yada.
QUIZ: How do you know when an attorney is lying?
John,
ReplyDeleteYou tail is wagging the dog again....no hunt my ass!!
As some anonymous Sprite tiptoeing through the underbrush, you really do seem to stick your little magic wand into other peoples' business....quit sniffin' your own fairy dust and get out of our woods!!
John, again you try and baffle the general public with your BS!!! You have cried wolf to many times. We the "Muppets" are not the uniformed voters that the Facebook cabal and this administration hope we are and what you seem to be with your two face and misleading comments. You are the one who said you didn't have a dog in this fight! Care to come clean? It will set you free!
ReplyDelete8-O
Comment by: surfer dude
ReplyDeleteThat OpenTrial.org article blew my mind. John Adam's predicted that a Facebook Cabal would come along and try to take down America from the inside. No wonder this government wants our firearms. The British wanted the Colonialist's firearms too. As usual, the bad guys dress up their secret agenda's in the sheep's clothing of stopping gun violence (who could disagree?) But the real agenda is a judicial-executive takeover... for the LOFO good, of course. Comrade Stalin knew better too. So did Chairman Mao. They always dressed everything they did in flowery peaches and cream wording. Old Harvey smooth mouth in the White House was just what they needed. That's why the recruited him!!!
Hey Craven,
ReplyDeleteI am here to speak about your above statement that you shared.(Thank you sooo much for your inside knowledge of the does & don'ts with "Facebook Law"). The Laws that FB is making up as they go!
Quote:
"Months ago, Lawless America changed its Facebook profile from a "personal" profile to a "business" profile. You can view this on their own website. Thus, you are no longer "friends" with Lawless America, but you "Like" their page. Whoever sent that screenshot was trying to access the old "friend" page of Lawless America, which Lawless America itself disabled. If you search on Facebook now, you will find Lawless America's "business" page fully accessible. There's no conspiracy here."
I am here to correct you on your assertion of the censorship that was shared. I was the one communicating with others regarding the corrupt Leader v Facebook case..Some were my friends from Lawless and actually a lot were with American Patriot sites.Example, Rise UP America, Act of Courage,The Patriot, Judges of Unjust Law, Justice Joe, and Mothers of Lost Children. So, again here is another example of your twisting of the events and truths! You better keep sharpening your crayon. We are not stopping. BTW..I was well aware of the issues that Lawless America was having with Facebook months ago!And I am friends with Lawless America Business page, as I have been months ago!
Thanks again for showing concern regarding my personal Facebook activities. God only knows how vigilant you could be if you truly had a dog in this hunt!
Reminds me of the way so many Judges Doofus blindly accept the words of lying attorneys (I know, redundant) in their courts, and just skip merrily down the road accepting those lies as truths, forcing the victims to have to prove endless falsehoods just because the Judges Doofus are too lazy or too bribe to sanction the liars.
ReplyDeleteAccording to our second President, America is in a state of anarchy and tyranny fomented by the Facebook Cabal, with Larry Summers at the helm. Looks like they have been at it for a decade. Isn't it curious that this is about the time we started hearing all the comments about Washington being BROKEN. Hmmmm. Fix Leader v. Facebook and we fix Washington too? A twofer?
ReplyDeleteIsn't it also curious that Lawrence "Larry" Summers is Obama's pick to take over as Chairman of the Federal Reserve? Double hmmmmm.
ReplyDeleteComment by: Superman
DeleteMatt Cohler, the "founder" of Instagram, co-founded LinkedIn with Reid Hoffman back in 2004 while Summers oversaw things for the Cabal at Haaavard re. Zuckerberg. Then, Summers just "popped up" out in Silicon Valley in 2012 before the Facebook IPO just long enough to oversee the purchase of the 13-man Instagram for $1 billion... How much of that did he put in his pocket? What a bunch of cockroaches. And we want Summers to be the next Chairman of the Federal Reserve?
I cannot believe that Donna Kline abandoned this cause. Why would she shut down her website?
ReplyDeleteDerek, I hate to have to burst your bubble, but the answer is pretty clear. If you look at all of Donna's previous posts, it is clear that they were paid advertisements. I don't know if she was paid directly, or whether she was just promised a payout in the event that Leader ever obtained a verdict or settlement from Facebook. In any event, she came to the realization in December 2012 that there was nothing forthcoming, and she abandoned coverage of this matter. I am virtually certain that all of her posts were written by the same author as this blog. If she were actually an objective journalist, there is no way you would see an abrupt cutoff and a complete cessation of any coverage. Now, I think that she has become embarrassed regarding the previous coverage, or she is not willing to pay the hosting fees for the website going forward. This is likely why the website is now offline.
DeleteLOL. "Tile Cutter" aka. John Craven. Pure unadulterated speculation. As we have indicated previously. Ms. Kline has family issues that are none of anyone's business.
DeleteExcellent new report/analysis on Larry Summers just hit the wires. Looks like they even used an AFI/Donna Kline graphic. Seems like we've seen it on earlier posts. Here it is:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/157251694/Who-is-Lawrence-Larry-Summers-Should-an-ethically-challenged-individual-become-leader-of-the-U-S-Federal-Reserve-Who-would-show-up-for-work-Dr
Well of course the graphics are the same. That article was written by the same person who writes this blog. That is why I believe people find this blog not to be credible. All of these phantom "grassroots" groups that mysteriously pop-up are undermining your credibility. If you were serious about the media paying attention to this cause, I would suggest that you put your name on your articles like a real journalist would. Dispense with the façade of "contributing writers" and "contributing editors". The media is never going to pay attention otherwise.
ReplyDeleteLOL. Spoken like a true ANONYMOUS hypocrite. Every corruption blogger we have surveyed has the anonymous "Derek," "Craven," and what was the latest, oh ye "Tile Cutter." You people spend most of your post time cajoling contributors to identify themselves. That is not going to happen unless that contributor wishes. You have no ability to fight in the open field of FACTS and TRUTH, since it is not on their side. And, the other thing we've learned is that this tack cycles, on again, off again, as it has with your comments.
ReplyDeleteAFI WELCOMES ANONYMOUS POSTS. Victims of attorney and judge abuse need a forum and we will give it to them. Public figures put themselves out there for the public to express opinions in any way they like short of maliciousness. You guys are not going to win. Freedom-loving people cannot let you win. History should teach you that you never do. But, it appears unlikely that any of you ever touched a history or ethics book. Your kind never have, that's why you repeat history's mistakes. Greed and lust for power are age-old vices. Your version is just slathered in bit-grease.
Your hypocrisy is legion. You anonymously criticize others for being anonymous. You people are too much.
As to your comments about the media. Again, pure speculation. Haven't you ever heard the expression, "you don't know what you don't know?" A mainstream media muzzled by bribes, graft and corruption is not a media to which we seek coverage. The mainstream media appears to many to have lost its way in collusion and its own lust for power. Always the ingredients of eventual failure and ruin.
The only mainstream media that Derek aka Craven aka Tile Cutter read is the NATIONAL INQUIRER. It is mildly interesting how these pathologically ego-centric people view "success."
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington (1732-1799), “Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder.”
ReplyDelete