Chief Justice Roberts pleads poverty as an excuse for his corrupt courts & "dark pool" Facebook IPO investments
New Jan. 3, 2014—Judicial Corruption Panels below
(Jan. 2, 2013)—On Dec. 31, 2013, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts issued his 15-page end of year report on the federal judiciary.
Buried on page 9, Justice Roberts blames hypothetical injustices by his courts (“unvindicated rights”) on lack of funding. Nowhere does he admit that his courts are rife with cronyism and don't deserve the funds they're presently receiving.
Instead, he praises his federal judges for their "selfless commitment to public services" and affirms the notion of an "independent Judicial Branch." These platitudes ring hollow in the light of his conduct and that of his courts. When corporate CEOs perform incompetently or corruptly, they are fired and, in the case of corruption, prosecuted.
However, using the court’s own ethical standards, the conduct of Chief Justice Roberts’ judges in Leader v. Facebook proves that Roberts' courts are wantonly corrupt.
Even one share requires disqualification
According to the court's own Judiciary Policy, ownership of “even one share of stock” requires disqualification (p. 20-2), not to mention the directive to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety." This concept trumps the flimsy excuses currently voiced about being allowed to invest in mutual funds. The point is, if you know or should have known, that the mutual fund held, or intended to hold Facebook stock, you must disqualify yourself.
By 2008, all the Leader v. Facebook judges held the Facebook "dark pools" stock. They were evidently chomping at the bit for Facebook to go public. The Federal Circuit, whose presiding judge Alan D. Lourie held 22 Facebook "dark pools," even timed his rulings to accommodate Facebook IPO media needs—claiming the timing was purely coincidental. The actions of Roberts' courts showed that they were not going to let Leader Technologies' constitutional private property rights spoil their dreams of an IPO windfall.
The Leader v. Facebook case went before the Delaware District Court Judge Leonard P. Stark, then the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and then the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judges in Leader v. Facebook held at least 213 Facebook “dark pool” investments
Facebook "Dark Pool" Investments
Judicial financial disclosures show that every judge in Leader v. Facebook had financial holdings in Facebook “dark pools” organized by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Fidelity, Blackrock, Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, TIAA-CREF, Microsoft and IBM.
Charade of impartiality
Despite these conflicts, not a single judge recused himself from Leader v. Facebook. Instead, they played a charade of impartiality. The evident motive was to protect their personal “dark pool” holdings prior to the Facebook IPO.
Facebook "Dark Pool" Investments
Contradicting Justice Roberts’ assertion of an “independent Judicial Branch,” we instead see a court system that has subordinated itself to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, as well as their own personal greed.
We further see a court system that has turned a blind eye to the similar “dark pool” holdings of their Executive Branch brethren. We see the heads of the SEC, Commerce, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Education, Commodities, Justice, etc. all swimming in the same Facebook dark pools. See two previous posts.
Justice Roberts is swimming in Facebook “dark pool” investments
Justice Roberts holds up to $6.5 million in 21 “dark pool” Facebook investments that he concealed when declining to hear Leader Technologies’ Petition for Writ of Certiorari. (This doesn't even account for the fact that he failed to tell Leader Technologies that Facebook's attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, is his protégé.) Likewise, Associate Justices Alito has 18, Breyer has 8, Ginsburg has 12, Elena Keegan has 18, Scalia has 30, Sotomayor has 4 and Thomas has 3. See Fig. 2; see also Corruption Panels below.
Fig. 5—Chief Justice John G. Roberts holds at least 21 Facebook "dark pool" investments. This makes him conflicted on any matters related to Leader v. Facebook. Click here to download a PDF directly.
The Leader v. Facebook Federal Circuit judges had similar holdings. Judges Lourie has 22, Moore has 20, Wallach has 12, and so on. The Leader v. Facebook District Court judge Leonard P. Stark has 9. See Fig. 3; see also Corruption Panels below.
Justice Roberts now has the audacity to ask for additional funds, while his judges personally pocket hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even billions, in Facebook stock sales founded on a lie they helped perpetrate—the confiscation of the social networking patent property of Columbus innovator Leader Technologies.
The People have the power of the purse. If we fund corrupt institutions, then we deserve the results.
American government's separation of powers is currently cruel hoax
The People must say no to Justice Roberts’ funding request, at least until he proves an “independent Judiciary” is more than another lie, like "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, period." Among his restitutions, he must return Leader Technologies’ stolen property. We must not let these great deceivers off the hook. The victims of their greed and deception must be made whole.
Say no to Justice Roberts until his federal courts come clean on Leader v. Facebook and other evident injustices.
If he doesn't, the only other remedy is impeachment, or he resigns in disgrace.
Justice Roberts' current conduct is wholly unacceptable to freedom loving people.
* * *
Federal Judiciary invested in Facebook "dark pools"—brokered by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan? *re. Leader v. Facebook + Fast & Furious + Rembrandt v. Facebook
Leonard P. Stark, Leader v. Facebook trial judge, July 19-27, 2010. Barack Obama nominee. Replaced 25-year veteran judge Joseph J. Farnan one month before trial. Confirmed one week after the trial. Ignored Pfaff Electronics and Group One v. Hallmark Cards precedents for testing on-sale bar evidence. His sole rationale for supporting Facebook was an unrelated 1860's criminal case that had never been used in a patent trial in history. His nomination was advised to Obama by Facebook lawyer Donald K. Stern, Cooley Godward LLP.
It should also be noted that just months before trial, Facebook's Leader v. Facebook trial attorney, Michael Rhodes, Cooley Godward LLP, was appointed Chief Legal Counsel for Tesla Motors—the recipient of almost $465 million in energy stimulus funds. Cooley Godward LLP and McBee Strategic LLC (led by Nancy Pelosi's former adviser Mike Sheehy) were key advisers on the stimulus funds given to 22 organizations, largely associated with Obama donors. 20 of those funded companies have now failed. Cooley Godward's man in the White House, Donald K. Stern, also advised Obama on the Stark nomination.
Amy B. Jackson aka Amy Sauber Berman.She has been stonewalling discovery of information from Attorney General Eric H. Holder about the murder of U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry by the Justice Department's Operation Fast and Furious.
Judge Berman is obviously a member of the Facebook Protection Racket Club.
Thomas S. Ellis III, J.D. Harvard. NO PHOTO AVAILALBE. He has failed to disclose his "Facebook "dark pool" conflicts of interest in Rembrandt v. Facebook; interests that were benefitted by the May 18, 2012 IPO, and which continues to accrue to him. His feigned objectivity is more dishonesty from a morally bankrupt federal judiciary.
Judge Ellis is obviously a member of the Facebook Protection Racket Club.