HOW THE FACEBOOK CLUB HIJACKED U.S. POLITICS FOR ANOINTED CANDIDATES

D.O.J. stonewalls Leader v. Facebook  FOIA request – telegraphs a rat's maze to avoid public scrutiny & accountability

Contributing Writers | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | Updated Sep. 30, 2013 | PDF

Fig. 1—The D.O.J.'s Transparency Merry Go Round. The U.S. Department of Justice has created a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Merry Go Round to avoid ever having to provide actual transparency information to the public. This conduct breaches democracy's most fundamental principles of accountability. Graphic: Melissa Suriel.

(Sep. 26, 2013)—On Jan. 21, 2009 President Obama declared "a democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency." Apparently, the Department of Justice (D.O.J.) and the Patent Office didn't get the memo.[1]

The mission of the D.O.J. is to "ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans."[2]

On Aug. 15, 2013 the D.O.J.'s Vanessa R. Brinkman responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information regarding Leader v. Facebook with anything but transparency.[6]

Even though the request was addressed according to instructions on the D.O.J. FOIA website, the D.O.J. Office of Information Policy (OIP) who "processes Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA) requests" said nonsensically "this Office nor any of these senior leadership [including the Attorney General] typically maintain records on specific court cases."

Facebook Club
"Wink Wink" Damage Control

Update Sep. 30, 2013—Jamie Dimon, CEO, JP Morgan Chase (left), was photographed on Thursday, Sep. 19, 2013 leaving an almost unprecedented meeting with Attorney General Eric Holder (right). What could they achieve in person that they could not by phone or video conference? (1) No NSA recording. (2) Lots of non-verbal winking & nodding. Well worth Dimon's trip from New York to keep Holder and Obama in line.

Reuters reported (PDF) that Holder would not disclose the details of the conversation. Holder included two D.O.J. attorneys with close ties to Obama and JP Morgan Chase—one of Holder's sidemen was Tony West. West is another of Larry Summers' Harvard protégés (along with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and DST Moscow's Yuri Milner and Alisher Asmanov). West was Obama's 2008 California campaign manager. What rousted Dimon out of New York? Dimon claims the 2008 meltdown was mismangement, nothing more. Could the AFI revelations of 2008 and 2012 election rigging be causing him heartburn? See Comment 4 below. Photos: Reuters, MainJustice.

[Editorial: This statement deserves a ROTFL (rolling on the floor laughing). Here we have our chief law enforcers claiming ignorance about conflicts disclosure information from the people who work for them. This is reminiscent of the President first learning about the IRS scandal from the evening news. If our leaders are not in charge, who is? Answer: The Facebook Club, we think.]

The response goes on to inform the requester that the D.O.J. system for handling FOIA requests is "decentralized" and that the requester should consult http://www.justice.gov/oip/oip.htm. Humorously, this website gives the Office of Information Policy contact information—the very ones making the suggestion. In short, contact us, then we'll tell you to... contact us again... then, we'll keep suggesting that you contact us until we've generated lots of official looking paper for our files... and/or until you give up.

Update Sep. 27, 2013

Fig. 2—Just a few of the Actual Conflicts Mapped re. the Federal Circuit in Leader v. Facebook.   These conflicts mapped above do not include Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Leonard P. Stark, Perkins Coii LLP, Blank Rome LLP, Anita B. Dunn, Robert F. Bauer, Kathryn Ruemmler, Thomas J. Kim, Donald K. Stern, John P. Breyer, IDG Capital Partners China, Roel Campos, David Plouffe, DC Bar Assoc., A.F.L.C.T.A.C.A.F.C., Patent Office, David J. Kappos, Kathryn W. Siehndel, Robert Ketterson, Fidelity Funds, T. Rowe Price Funds, Preetinder Preet Bharara, Mike Sheehy, McBee Strategic, LinkedIn, Square, SquareSpace, Brightsource, Tesla Motors, Instagram, Wikipedia, Jeff Markey, Morgan Stanley, Ellen L. Weintraub, Robert D. Lenhard, Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, Andreessen Horowitz, Lawrence "Larry" Summers, James Swartz, Ping Li, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Matthew J. Moore, Theodore B. Olson, Eric Holder, Stephen C. Siu, Meredith C. Petravick, Allen R. MacDonald or Deandra M. Hughes, to name just a few of those who have been positively identified during our investigations.

Finally! 7th Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood speaks out in support of AFI’s contention that the Federal Circuit’s monopoly over patent appeals must end

Is a judicial fix for the corrupt Leader v. Facebook  appeal in the offing, or will Congress be forced to fix it? (Rumor has it that Congressional committees are investigating how to fix the corruption emanating from the Executive and Judicial Branches in this case.)

Update Sep. 27, 2013—Yesterday, Seventh Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood proposed ending the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals, according to Law360 (click here). Finally, a federal judge has dressed down this court which has become corrupted by the Facebook Club.

Graphic: Leo Cullum

Even though Judge Wood sidestepped the corruption elephant in the room, her recommendations are welcomed nonetheless. She was careful to discuss only systemic problems, while avoiding specific examples of Federal Circuit abuse of private property rights—as has occurred in Leader v. Facebook and Zoltek Corp. v. US. (Fed. Cir. and their Facebook Club members are working to strip Congress of jurisdiction over private property rights by flat out ignoring constitutional precedent, e.g., the on-sale bar whitewash in Leader v. Facebook.)

Fig. 3—7th Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood calls for the Federal Circuit's monopoly on patent appeals to end, asking "Uniformity is great, but what if it's uniformly bad?" CLICK HERE for Law360 article. Photo: Univ. of Chicago Law School

dwood@ca7.uscourts.gov

Is Judge Wood a lone drummer, or will others join her? Time will tell. We at AFI have been hoping and praying for a break in these dark clouds.  Will moral judicial leaders speak up? Or, is the notion of a moral and just judge merely a cruel hoax in early 21st century America?  

Are our federal judges already too compromised into silence by their big infringer paymasters—the Leader v. Facebook judges chief among them, including Stark, Lourie, Wallach, Moore, Rader, Siu, Petravick, Moore, Hughes, MacDonald, DC Bar, Federal Circuit Bar Association, A.F.L.C.T.A.C.A.F.C., Clerk Horbaly, USPTO Director Kappos and Chief Justice John Roberts? In the case of these judges, their inside knowledge of the Facebook IPO planned by Goldman Sachs lured them to the rocky shoals of profligacy. How many others are equally compromised for life?

Prepare for the rats to scurry (some like Kappos, Rea, Stern, Bauer, Plouffe, Ruemmler & Horbaly already have)

Fig. 4—Members of the Facebook Club, with their pockets and foreign bank accounts full of Facebook stock winnings, will now try and create distance between themselves and their fellow collaborators. Graphic: Michael Northrop.

AFI’s position is that these compromised, constitutionally oath-bound judges and lawyers must resign, be impeached and/or be brought up on fraud and racketeering charges for their collusion with the Facebook Club. They have betrayed America’s trust and must be brought to account if faith and trust in our democratic processes are to return. Until then, nothing said by our institutions will be trusted.

Being a judge is a revocable privilege bestowed by the People. It is not a birthright. The fact that our judges have exempted themselves from accountability for even illegal actions on the bench is contemptible, unconstitutional (creates a privileged class) and must be reversed.

The D.O.J. Merry Go Round

Let’s get this straight.

1. According to the D.O.J. website (http://www.justice.gov – in the bottom right sidebar titled "Justice.gov" click "FOIA" which goes to:

2. OIP (http://www.justice.gov/oip/). The menu on that page presents "OIP FOIA" which goes to the contact information for: 

3. OIP FOIA (http://www.justice.gov/oip/oip.htm).

4. However, Ms. Brinkman responds that while OIP "processes" requests, they don't "maintain records." Huh? This is reminiscence of the Seinfeld car reservation episode where the car rental agency takes reservations, but they don't hold those reservations.

[Cue circus music.]

Why do we pay these people?

These D.O.J. people are either incompetent, or they are intentionally obscuring the FOIA process to discourage public transparency. If its either reason, why do we pay them? The Requester appealed this embarrassing D.O.J. conduct. Click here to read the appeal (also displayed at the end of this post).

Brinkman took great pains to spell out what they do not, will not and are not required to do. The “decentralized” nature of the D.O.J. FOIA system was emphasized, but nowhere was it mentioned that the D.O.J. website promises to "forward your request to the D.O.J. component they determine is most likely to maintain the records you are seeking."[3]

D.O.J.'s FOIA policy toward U.S. citizens. Graphic: 7thBoro

The reader is left with the impression that Brinkman could not be bothered, or is hiding something. Perhaps both.

Given the D.O.J.’s obstruction, the requester spelled out a list of people and organizations suspected of misconduct in Leader v. Facebook, including their possible collusion with members of the Department of Justice. This person even suggested basic search instructions.

D.O.J.’s "decentralized" FOIA maze prevents scrutiny

The D.O.J.’s “decentralized” FOIA data processing system appears to be at cross purposes with the law of the land on conflicts of interest disclosure. That information should be readily accessible, not hidden inside a rat's maze of deceptions and misdirection. The fact that it is hidden begs the question, "What is so important to hide that the D.O.J. won't follow mandates for which they are supposed to be the chief law enforcers?"

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 requires mandatory, public disclosure of financial and employment history of public officials and their immediate family.[4]

In 2006, well before Leader v. Facebook, the Judicial Conference mandated automated conflicts screening for courts and judges.[5]

How the Facebook Club hijacked U.S. Politics

The misconduct revealed by the Leader scandal begs the question: “What drives the Department of Justice these days, the U.S. Constitution or the Facebook Club?”

The requester's list reads more like a shadow U.S. Government. Their conduct certainly gives one pause:

• President Obama's protection of Facebook to preserve his 47 million "likes" on Facebook; White House reliance on confiscated private property to sustain its power;
• 16,000 Patent Office Facebook "likes" protected by Director David J. Kappos, using a patented system stolen from Leader Technologies which the Patent Office is right now trying wipe off the map by autocratic fiat;
• Fabricated "likes" are used to titillate and manipulate low-information voters (just enough to statistically manipulate any close election);
• Deregulated Internet electioneering founded upon fraudulent misrepresentation (by Perkins Coii LLP partners — long time person counsels of Barack Obama);
Shadow U.S. Government?


The Facebook Club is likely an unelected, shadow U.S. Goverment. See  "Faces of the Facebook Corruption."
• Protection of the stolen Facebook platform for electioneering and global financial manipulations via massive judicial misconduct in Leader v. Facebook;
• Lack of electioneering accountability and transparency over the private Facebook data manipulation of "likes" without equal access;
• Substantial foreign influence in American electioneering via intertwined Facebook Club relationships; and
• Facebook's Washington, Silicon Valley and Moscow law firms and financiers undermining the Constitutional separation of powers—to secure their own, led by their mentor, Lawrence "Larry" Summers.

We could go on, but the evidence is clear . . .

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." (Shakespeare's Hamlet, Act I)

Dept. of Justice FOIA Appeal, OIP/13-04526 (F) VRB:VAV:CMW, Vanessa R. Brinkman, Aug. 15, 2013 by Americans For Innovation

* * *

Footnotes:

[1] Barack Obama on Gov't Transparency, The White House, Memorandum of January 21, 2009. ''Title 3 – The President, Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.'' Presidential Documents, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 15, FR Doc. E9-1773, pp. 4683-4684, Jan. 26, 2009 <http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/foia_rr/President_Letter_re_FOIA_Jan-21-2009.pdf> ("A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.").

[2] About the DOJ. U.S. Dept. of Justice. Accessed Sep. 26, 2013 <http://www.justice.gov/about/about.html>.

[3] DOJ FOIA Requests. Where should I send my request? DOJ, Office of Information Policy. Accessed Sep. 26, 2013 <http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-request.html#2.>

[4] Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Wikipedia. Accessed Sep. 26, 2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act>.

[5] Mandatory Conflicts Screening For Courts & Judges. Judicial Council of the District of Columbia Circuit. Accessed Sep. 26, 2013 ("On September 19, 2006, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a mandatory conflict screening policy requiring courts and judges to implement automated screening to identify financial conflicts of interest.") <http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20Rules%20Policies%20Procedures%20-%20Mandatory%20Conflict%20Screening%20Plan/$FILE/mandatoryconflictplanfinal2.pdf>.

[6] D.O.J. Leader v. Facebook  Request, Response, Appeal. USPTO FOIA Appeal, OIP/13-04526 (F) VRB:VAV:CMW, Vanessa R. Brinkman, Aug. 15, 2013 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/usptp/2013-08-27-USPTO-FOIA-Appeal-NAME-REDACTED-OIP-13-04526-F-VRB-VAV-CMW-Aug-27-2013.pdf>.