AFI Custom Search

SEARCH by topic, keyword or phrase. Type in Custom Search box
Use this Custom Search toole.g. "IBM Eclipse Foundation" or "racketeering"

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

REID AND PELOSI HELPED FIX JUDGES IN LEADER V. FACEBOOK

Nancy D. Pelosi  Harry M. Reid

Fig. 1—Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid stacked the courts in Leader v. Facebook.

At 5,600 to 1 odds, two Obama cronies of Reid and Pelosi were assigned to the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement case. Hindsight is 20/20. These judges were installed to guarantee a win for Facebook prior to the Facebook IPO. Pelosi, Reid and their cronies were substantial beneficiaries.

Pelosi is heavily invested in Baidu, Inc. China into which her Facebook cronies have poured tens of billion of dollars to control the Chinese social networking market. Curiously, Baidu's CEO and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg became CEOs of their respective companies the very same month—Jan. 2004—just two months after Ohio innovator, Leader Technologies, Inc., finished debugging the critical modules of Leader's social networking invention.

At trial, Facebook's expert witness, Dr. Saul Greenberg, lied about this very module and misled the jury. At the same time, Judge Leonard P. Stark blocked the jury from hearing a proper Leader defense which would have included expert testimony from Leader's patent attorney, Professor James P. Chandler, III, President of the National Intellectual Property Law Institute. Professor Chandler oversaw Leader's invention secrecy protections. He would have handily debunked Facebook's fabrications from personal knowledge of Leader's strenuous work, guided by him as a Leader director and advisor, to protect the invention. The unrefuted court record attests to these practices.

Tellingly, Nancy Pelosi also holds investments with In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital fund, and NBC Universal. NBC is a prime mover in the inordinately pro-Obama reporting of the Mainstream Media. NBC is also closely aligned with Baidu, Inc. China as well.

Corrupt Obama appointees also fueled the HealthCare.gov debacle, NSA and AP spying, IRS meddling, Benghazi stonewalling, and Russia policy failures

Contributing Writers | OPINION | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Updated Mar. 28, 2014 | PDF

(Mar. 26, 2014)—Our recovery effort after the Scribd censorship highlighted new evidence about Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi that was previously overlooked.

The Leader v. Facebook case had four main judges. District Court judge Leonard P. Stark, and three Federal Circuit judges: Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore and Evan J. Wallach. This doesn't count the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit En Banc petitions.

Hindsight shows clearly that Reid and Pelosi helped President Obama stack the Leader v. Facebook courts with crony judges, namely district court judge Leonard P. Stark and Federal Circuit appeals judge Evan J. Wallach.

Reid employed Wallach as Chief Counsel

Senator Reid's collusion is readily apparent. He had employed Wallach as his chief counsel. Curiously, Reid nominated Wallach to the Federal Circuit just two (2) days after Leader Technologies filed its Leader v. Facebook appeal at the Federal Circuit even though Wallach has no patent law experience.

Pelosi was Stark's matron

Representative Pelosi's duplicity is evident with 20/20 hindsight—after analyzing her 2012 financial disclosure where she declares her net worth at up to $185 million.

Pelosi's former national security advisor, Mike Sheehy, left Pelosi just as her term as Speaker of the House was starting, in March 2009. This was just three months after Leader v. Facebook started. Sheehy joined the Washington D.C. lobbying firm, McBee Strategic LLC. McBee was teamed with Facebook's attorney, Cooley Godward LLP. Cooley also had their partner, Donald K. Stern, in the White House advising on judicial appointments. (These Facebook relationships were never disclosed by Stark.)

blind justice
"A noble society must demand blind justice, and must toss out any judge who violates the public trust, even once."
Unknown

In Jan. 2010, just a week after Facebook's disastrous performance in the Leader v. Facebook Markman Hearing, veteran judge Joseph J. Farnan was forced into retirement and Obama nominee, Magistrate Leonard P. Stark, was assigned, just one month before trial. This was surprising since Farnan had expressed his interest in taking the case to trial on numerous occasions. The same month as Stark's ascendancy from obscurity, Facebook's Cooley Godward LLP trial counsel, Michael G. Rhodes, was appointed chief counsel at Elon Musk's Tesla Motors, Inc. Musk is a notorious Obama donor who had just received $465 million in energy stimulus funds. The incestuous back scratching is apparent with hindsight.

Tesla Motor's funds were recommended by the McBee Strategic – Cooley Godward partnership led by Nancy Pelosi's man—Mike Sheehy.

Why was veteran judge Joseph J. Farnan forced to retire just one month before trial? Because Facebook knew they were going to lose in a fair fight.

Ohio innovator, Leader Technologies, was denied blind justice by Reid's and Pelosi's interference to protect Obama "likes" and line their pockets with IPO winnings

This collusion explains how Facebook beat the odds that two of the judges in Leader v. Facebook just happened to be Obama nominees.

Pick a judge, any judge
Justice is supposed to be blind. The odds of randomly picking two Obama appointees in Leader v. Facebook were at least 5,600 to 1—the same odds as randomly picking two Obama appointees out of this MLK crowd.
Odds are 5670 to 1 that Leader v. Facebook courts selected two Obama appointees
Fig. 2—Rev. Martin Luther King spoke before a crowd of 5,000 at Golden Gymnasium at what was then the Point Loma campus of California Western University on May 29, 1964.

The odds of picking Judge Leonard P. Stark were 1:7, at best

There are seven judges and magistrates at the Delaware District Court. Therefore, the odds of selecting Stark out of a hat for Leader v. Facebook were 1 in 7. We say "at best" because the pool of candidates is not limited to active judges. Judges emeritus can be selected in special circumstances, like conflicts of interest. So, the odds were actually lower.

The odds of picking Judge Evan J. Wallach were 810 to 1—0.10%

The Federal Circuit has 18 circuit judges and Wallach was one of about 45 Democratic chief counsels from which to choose. The odds of Wallach's appearance on the bench in Leader v. Facebook were 1 in 18x45=810 choices. This number is higher since the pool of candidates was likely much higher than 45. In other words, the selection of Wallach had a 1 in 810 chance of occurring, 1/18 x 1/45 = 1/810.

Fanned Deck of Cards
Fig. 3— The odds of picking two Obama appointee cards shuffled among 128 decks of cards is 1 in 5670 or 0.02%. The federal court system allegedly did just that. It blindly selected Leonard P. Stark and Evan J. Wallach. And, it was supposedly just dumb luck that these two judges were both Obama appointees closely associated with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Facebook's Cooley Godward LLP law firm in Leader v. Facebook.

The odds of the two Obama nominees being selected was 5670 to 1—0.02%

Therefore, the odds that two Obama nominees would be assigned to Leader v. Facebook were 1 in 5670 or 0.02%, at best.

By way of analogy, the odds of picking Stark and Wallach were the same as randomly picking their names out of 128 decks of cards. See Fig. 3.

Pelosi values her holdings at up to $185 million, not counting 10 undisclosed holdings

Pelosi holds funds with direct investments in these members of the now familiar Facebook cartel:

  1. Facebook
  2. Baidu, Inc. ("The Chinese Facebook")
  3. QualComm (Cooley Godward LLP, chief counsel)
  4. Accel Partners LLP
  5. IDG Ventures (James W. Breyer, Facebook, Accel Partners LLP, IDG-Accel China)
  6. Venrock (Robert P. Kocher, MD, Obamacare)
  7. Hambrecht (Ann H. Lamont)
  8. Meritech (Ann H. Lamont)
  9. In-Q-Tel (CIA)
  10. Microsoft
  11. IBM
  12. NBC Universal
  13. Comcast (NBC)
  14. Goldman Sachs
  15. Morgan Stanley
  16. T.Rowe Price

Through $7 million in Matthews International Capital, Pelosi holds major interests in Baidu, Inc., sometimes called "The Chinese Facebook." Baidu and Facebook are quit similar. Is that just coincidental?

Here are some facts about Baidu, Inc. China:

  • CEO, Robin Yangong Li, was appointed in Jan. 2004, the same month that Mark Zuckerberg purportedly programmed Facebook at Harvard. Facebook launched on Feb. 4, 2004 after Zuckerberg said he developed the whole system in "one to two weeks." By contrast, Leader Technologies said it cost them $10 million and 145,000 man-hours to actually develop the innovations now called "social networking." In court, Leader proved that Facebook was guilty of all 11 of 11 infringement claims.

  • Robin Yangong Li established a Cayman Island presence to hold his Baidu stock, naming the company "Handsome Reward."

  • Chief of Patents, Parker Zhang, was a rookie attorney, not even a partner, at Fenwick & West LLP in Palo Alto, CA before being catapulted to the top intellectual property job at Baidu.

  • T.Rowe Price and Baillie Gifford, along with Robin Li, are the top three largest shareholders in Baidu. Baillie Gifford and T. Rowe were the 2nd and 4th largest fund investors in the Facebook IPO. Baillie Gifford "advised" Vanguard who was the 9th largest purchaser of Facebook stock.

  • IDG Capital Partners appears to have simultaneously directed the birth of Baidu (China) "The Chinese Facebook"), Facebook (US) and VKontakte (Russia) ("the Russian Facebook"). Russian oligarch Alisher Usmanov invested billions of "dubious" origins into Facebook private "dark pools" pre-IPO stock facilitated by Goldman Sachs, who was also Usmanov's partner in Moscow. This Alisher Usmanov's activity pumped Facebook pre-IPO valuation to $100 billion. Usmanov also owns 52% of VKontakte.

  • Former Treasury Secretary and Obama bailout director, Lawrence "Larry" Summers, mentored Usmanov's co-oligarch, Yuri Milner, along with Facebook COO, Sheryl K. Summers, when he was Chief Economist for the World Bank. Pundits believe Summers manipulated failing Soviet markets and created the current Russian oligarchies, including Usmanov.

  • IDG Capital Partners is led by the Breyer family: John P. Breyer (father) and James W. Breyer (son).

  • James W. Breyer is Facebook' largest shareholder and together with Mark Zuckerberg elicited Stanford students to write apps for the stolen Leader Technologies' platform on Oct. 22, 2005. See Mark E. Zuckerberg and James W. Breyer solicitation of Stanford Univ. students, Oct. 26, 2005, Stanford Ctr. for Prof. Dev, Video: YouTube and FBCPSee also the Transcript.

  • Facebook's law firm, Gibson Dunn LLP, withheld 28 Zuckerberg Harvard hard drives and emails from Leader Technologies, saying they were "lost." Yet magically, one (1) day after the Federal Circuit denial of Leader's petition, they produced all 28 in Ceglia v. Zuckerberg. What sins are they hiding? Why have the federal courts been so cooperative in preventing all access, even when after they were "found."

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

Pelosi has up to $500,000 invested in Granite Ventures who is co-invests with the CIA (In-Q-Tel), Accel Partners LLP (James W. Breyer), IDG Capital Partners (James W. Breyer and John P. Breyer), Venrock (Robert P. Kocher, MD--Obamacare), Ann H. Lamont (Obamacare), Meritech (Facebook, Obamacare), Accenture (Obamacare), Microsoft and IBM.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD: Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House of Representatives, CA-12th, Financial Disclosure john 2012, submitted May 15, 2013
Fig. 4—Nancy Pelosi, CA-12th, Financial Disclosure, 2012. Click here to download the PDF.

Judge fixing is a crime

Equal treatment before the law is a sacred American democratic value. Leader v. Facebook has exposed serious flaws in the administration of justice in America. Citizens have no hope of justice, on any topic, when the leaders of the three branches of government all collude, as occurred here.

In Leader v. Facebook, the Executive Branch conspired with the leaders of the Legistlative Branch (Pelosi and Reid) to fix a court case managed by the Judicial Branch. The only honest actor was the jury, which when given proper evidence, ruled in Leader Technologies' favor on all 11 of 11 counts. They ruled that Facebook is in "literal infringement' of Leader's patent.

However, the guilty ruling was overwhelmed by attorney-fabricated sophistry on appeal, by dozens if not hundreds of colluding lawyers who know better, but who, like their couterparts at the White House, Patent Office and Legislature, were lavished riches that have seared their consciences with a hot iron.

Congress, the People's Body, can make this right

The Founders thought a time might come when the checks and balances system itself might become corrupt by party interests. In that circumstance, they knew the normal avenues of appeal would not work. Therefore, they vested ultimate power in Congress, the People's body. There the representatives of the citizenry had the power of property and purse.

Request for Congressional Intervention

We encourage each and every one of our freedom-loving readers to submit the Request for Congressional Intervention. Our property rights and those of our children and grandchildren are teetering over a precipice. If Leader's rights are not fully restored and made right, then all of our rights will be next.

These bad Facebook actors are waiting to see if American citizens even care about their Constitutional rights any longer. They have seen how easily they give up their privacy to titillation and chronic distraction. Leader v. Facebook is a test.

If America lets them steal Leader's social networking invention, then nothing will stop them.

Write your representatives folks. Don't procrastinate.

[Click here to get started: PDF | HTML]

* * *

Thank You!

A big thank you to AFI volunteers for helping us get the hundreds of censored Scribd documents relinked and back up. We are reminded of the Book of Genesis 50:20: "you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result" (NASB).

We were impressed by the amount and quality of the hard evidence of wrongdoing now available. We took this document recovery opportunity to package up the evidence for even easier access. We also updated the AFI sidebar. So, while the Scribd principals undoubtedly meant to slow us down, the opposite has occured. :-)

v

18 comments:

  1. I just stumbled onto this blog and I have to say that the whole premise here is pretty outrageous.

    As I’ve read through the various posts, the argument seems to be that there are tons of these “dark pool” mutual funds that contain Facebook stock, and ownership of these “dark pools” led a massive number of judges, administration officials, press, etc. to conspire against Leader?

    Mathematically, this makes absolutely no logical sense. Take a look at this chart, which summarizes hundreds of mutual funds containing Facebook stock. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2SfG2nEsMfqRzlSOEVsR29reFk/edit

    In almost every single fund, the Facebook stock consists of less than 1% of the fund’s weight. There are a couple of outliers, but virtually every one of these funds only has a miniscule percentage of Facebook stock among its holdings.

    Now you’re claiming that say, for example, Justice Roberts holds a bunch of these funds. Let’s assume he’s got $10 million invested in 20 different “dark pool” funds. That’s probably WAY too high a figure, but just for argument’s sake. Assuming very generously that the average Facebook holding among those 20 funds is .75% (it’s probably a lot lower), then the value of all of that Facebook stock in those funds is a whopping $75K. And now let’s assume that Justice Roberts make some decision that causes Facebook to go up wildly by 50%. That value of that stock, spread among 20 different funds, goes up to $112,500, for a total gain of $37,500. And this of course assumes that none of the other holdings of the funds go DOWN as a result of Facebook going up.

    So you’re claiming that the Chief Justice of the United States will just throw the Constitution out the window and be “blackmailed” into supporting Obamacare on the hypothetical scenario that his decision would result in a massive 50% increase in the value of Facebook stock, for a whopping gain of less than $40,000 in 20 different mutual funds (all of which he would likely hold for years anyway)? I don’t think so.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This simple math illustrates why the basic premise of this blog is so flawed and why mutual fund holdings aren’t considered conflicts of interest. The idea that back in 2005 or so some group of people began organizing a worldwide conspiracy to get judges, administration officials, congress, press, etc. into mutual funds that—someday—would possess a not-yet-public company and that 5-10 years in the future these individuals would make decisions favorable to that not-yet-public company, resulting in miniscule percentage increases in mutual fund returns is just ridiculous. You’re right that “Tom Clancy couldn’t make this up” because it makes no sense in the fictional world or the real world.

    And while we’re on the subject of the Supreme Court, why does this blog keep claiming that Justice Roberts “mentors” Thomas Hungar. Hungar said that in 1992—more than 20 years ago—his colleague John Roberts at the Solicitor General’s office at the time gave him some advice on how to prepare for oral arguments. 20+ years ago. And since then I think that Hungar has argued some 20+ cases in front of the Supreme Court. Are you claiming that because Roberts gave him some advice 20+ years ago, Hungar can never argue a case in front of Roberts? That has got to be one of the most far out arguments I’ve ever heard. And apparently since Hungar works for Gibson Dunn, this means that no one from the firm of Gibson Dunn can ever argue a case in front of Roberts? These just aren’t conflicts of interest by any stretch of the imagination.

    And also, if these judges and other officials were supposedly making decisions that would bump up the value of Facebook, don’t you think you would have seen increases in share price that could be tied to these decisions? For example, the Supreme Court supposedly scandalously denied cert on January 7, 2013. This was supposedly the result of Justice Roberts and other Supreme Court judges holding mutual funds that contained Facebook stock (and not the fact that the Court denies cert to more than 99% of the cases submitted to it). Facebook stock closed at $27.77 on Friday, January 4. It closed on January 7 at 28.76, an increase of a whopping 3.5%. By the end of February, you see the price dipping back into the $27 range. It’s clear that the Supreme Court had absolutely nothing to do with Facebook or Leader.

    If you look back at any of the supposed scandals this website identifies (3rd reexam, Obamacare website launch, etc.) you’ll see that they have absolutely nothing to do with the price of Facebook stock.

    Now if you had identified a single judge, official, congressperson, etc. who held ACTUAL Facebook stock, then maybe you would have a conflict of interest. But here, this is all just wild speculation that has no basis in reality. The idea of bribing people through mutual funds makes absolutely no mathematical sense.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David, you have apparently glossed over the “massive” amounts of judicial misconduct to focus on your misunderstanding of the “Dark Pools”! This blog has shown that an injustice has been done, by the misconduct from attorneys to judges! The “Dark Pools” only confirm the complicity of the judges and other participants.
    I’ll only point out a few of the judicial misconduct items that you seem to dismiss.
    1. District court judge contradicting his own court order to justify his ruling!
    2. A judge hiding the fact that their spouse works for Facebook!
    3. Judges lying about the meaning of a court order in order to justify their decision!
    4. Judges hiding their ownership of Facebook stock. ( You might want to really research this a little. The idea that a judge does not need to disclose a mutual fund is not all inclusive as you are led to believe!)
    Those are but a few of the items that you “missed” before commenting.
    I would recommend that you thoroughly research a blog before commenting.
    To say you just “stumbled” onto this blog and it inspired you to essentially dismiss it as “pretty outrageous” says a lot about your character. The one thing that no one has been able to do is dispute the facts that have been presented here. Everyone that has written negatively has just been trying to baffle everyone with their “Bullsh*t”! They can’t even bring facts to back up what they are saying!
    I just hope that in your dealings with the courts that you don’t have to put up with judicial misconduct or attorney misconduct, even minutely.
    8-O

    ReplyDelete
  4. "David Cisco", really? LOL.

    You certainly are full of uninformed opinions for someone who "just stumbled on this blog."

    As best we can tell, the only defenders of Facebook's misconduct are attorneys who are recipients of the filthy lucre. Your arguments make no sense in the face of overwhelming evidence that refutes your points. We have visions of you guys sitting around years ago concocting these lame excuses, thinking no one would challenge you.

    We suggest that the first of you to whistle blow on this corruption can probably cut a deal to stay out of jail. Time's a'waisting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hey Darren, what are you thinking, man? The Cisco Kid isn't interested in the truth. He has made a living by lying and cheating people. He's an attorney. Facebook is an attorney fabrication, so it stands to reason these same people will redouble their efforts to spin their way to fooling us great unwashed yet again.

    Message to the Cisco Kid. We're marching on Washington and will not rest until you are all behind bars. Suggest you cut a deal and get immunity before we don't need what you know anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I’m not sure what possessed me to do it but I’ve now read through this blog from start to finish and gone through all of the supporting documents. I commend the amount of effort that has gone into this blog but my conclusions remain the same. I don’t see any evidence of an actual conspiracy or any true scandals.

    Actually, I formed the contrary conclusion. Looking at the original Donna Kline posts and then this blog, it’s clear that the author of this blog has approached the whole situation the way a creationist would approach evolution and the fables in the bible. He had a story in his head about the way he believed things to be, and then tried to pick and choose evidence that would support his theory. Creationists do the same thing. For example, they claim that the great flood actually occurred, and then they cite sedimentary layers that match around the world as evidence of the same. In reality, those layers occurred as a result of large-scale meteorite hits that cast particles into the atmosphere that were then distributed evenly throughout the planet. The creationist has already pre-determined that the story should be, and then cherry-picks evidence to support that theory. In contrast, the scientist looks at the evidence without an agenda, and then tries to draw conclusions.

    Looking at the evidence here scientifically, the same result occurs. For example, I reviewed the chart of mutual funds yesterday. There are some 200+ of them that contain Facebook stock, and this mix of 200 includes many incredibly popular funds. Thus, the empirical evidence supports the conclusion that millions upon millions of Americans are going to hold these funds, including judges, government officials, members of the media, etc. It is therefore no surprise to find that a huge number of judges, officials, and members of the media hold mutual funds containing Facebook stock. The conclusion is that holding these funds is not evidence of any bias, but simply the natural order of things. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that virtually all of these funds have only microscopic amounts of Facebook stock among their holdings. Thus, holding a fund is not evidence of any agenda, but again just the natural result of the amount of funds holding this particular security.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The creationist looks at the situation in a backwards fashion. He claims that there is a conspiracy afoot whereby these judges, officials, and members of the media are predisposed to favor Facebook. And then, voila, he learns that these individuals hold mutual funds that contain Facebook stock. Conclusion of the creationist? Conspiracy, bias, collusion. You can see how it works.

    I could go on and on and identify the same trends with every claimed scandal in this blog, but you get the idea.

    And again, I applaud the effort that went into this blog and Donna’s blog. But I’ve got to be blunt after looking at all of this in detail over the last 2 days. This issue is just plain dead. Donna’s blog and this blog were hammering congress, officials, press, etc. for well over 2 years. No one bit, and I think the reason is that there is just nothing real here. If we believed this blog, there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of people involved in the supposed conspiracy. Someone would have talked. Someone would have broken. No conspiracy in the history of the planet was ever as tight as this blog would lead you to believe. It’s statistically impossible that no one would have broken ranks or that not a single person from the media would have picked up on this if there was actually something to report.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sorry to throw fuel on the fire here, but another trend I noticed in my review is that this blog constantly throws out wild accusations with no evidentiary support.

    For example, no evidence that Judge Stark ever prevented chandler from testifying. No evidence that Jusge Stark prevented leader from presenting evidence on on sale bar. No evidence facebook ever claimed it lost any hard drives. No evidence the federal circuit violated pfaff. Why? Because leader didn't raise that particular issue on appeal. It only claimed that distrust of witness was not enough to satisfy the clear and convincing standard. But leader conceded that the product was in fact sold too early, because leader did not raise that issue on appeal. This is basic appellate procedure.

    I could go on and on but this trend is consistent in everything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This post proves that "David Cisco" is a Facebook lawyer... who lied above by saying he just "stumbled" onto this site two days ago. Whatever works, right Cisco Kid? Leader argued the court's failure to uphold the clear and convincing evidence standard. Leader's JMOL (Judgment As a Matter of Law) argued Pfaff extensively and was incorporated. If the key Supreme Court law on on-sale bar was not followed, then what else would there be to argue about? Cisco is very evidendly a crooked lawyer telling lies and attempting to mislead the public.

      Read for yourselves:

      The Federal Circuit filings linked here:

      http://facebook-technology-origins.blogspot.com/2011/11/leaders-lawyers-dismantle-facebooks.html

      Leader's JMOL arguing Pfaff.

      http://www.leader.com/docs/2010-08-25-Leader_v_Facebook-Leader-JMOL-Rule-50b-59-Motion-NO-EXHIBITS-VERSION-August-25-2010.pdf

      The only defenders of Zuckerberg, Breyer and Facebook appear to be its boy-band fabricators -- crooked lawyers exploiting the law for their personal gain. The first whistle blowers may be able to stay out of jail.

      Delete
    2. And thank you for making my argument for me. Read the Leader white brief. There are only two very narrow issues presented to the federal circuit. 1) whether disbelief of a witness is affirmative evidence and 2) whether the product offered for sale embodied the invention. There is no argument that leader did not in fact offer a product for sale more than a year before the application. Thus, that issue is admitted for purposes of appeal and of course the court would not consider it or analyze it as part of the appeal. Very simple.

      Delete
  9. “I just stumbled onto this blog and I have to say that the whole premise here is pretty outrageous.”
    I find this statement, alone, to be rather dubious in its context. It would take someone weeks to peruse this entire blog –Donna Kline’s excluded. The amount of fact-checking, cross fact-checking, and researching alone would take weeks to accomplish. So, unless, ‘David Cisco’, you’re a graduate of Evelyn Whitehead’s Sped Reddin course, I have to call your bluff. If I’m wrong, then I, and the entire throng of followers who also ‘stumble’ upon this blog, tip our hats to ya!
    And to be clear, when one comes upon a crime scene (excuse the graphic inference) and sees a victim with a bullet hole in his head, one concludes the victim was shot. When a court case, as egregious as Leader v Facebook was, has the mere appearance of impropriety, let alone procedural and legal errors, one concludes foul play. Surely, in your research, you found these errors?
    No matter how big or small, a mere holding of one stock is grounds for recusal; you are aware of this? And, in your research, you are most certainly aware of one of the presiding judges at the Federal Circuit Ct was attempting to buy stock in one of these ‘Dark Pools’, all whilst hearing arguments on Leader v Facebook. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Justice Roberts refused to even allow this case to come to SCOTUS. We ask why? Perhaps his ‘flip-flopping’, at the last minute of the legality of Obamacare can shed some light. Blackmail? Possibly. But it certainly warrants Congressional intervention. Hey, I’ll take an increase of $37,500.00 any day!
    And, fyi, this blog is not flawed; you’re lack of understanding it is. Since you’ve recently ‘stumbled’ upon the blog, you assume that this fight started yesterday. Sorry, dude! 5-10 years in the future was today, back then. This fight started the moment Mike McKibben’s program was stolen –yes, stolen (that is still a crime in most parts). We will keep fighting this fight, simply because we are looking out for even you guys. If Leader v Facebook is not overturned, then every piece of property is up for grabs by the highest bidder.
    Psalm 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God”.
    Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.
    The existence of God in peoples’ lives is what causes us to approach life with humility. Without it, we are nothing more than intellectual misfits, grasping at concepts, theories, and ultimately thinking we are far more superior than we really are. With it, we have a sense of peace. We seek what is just. What is right. We have moral restraints. Not understanding these things lead men (and women) down dark, destructive paths, never caring for ramifications, just personal gain. We creationists are not backward thinking, as you suggest; we have no reason to look over our shoulders. In fact, it is the non-creationists who must live their lives in a fishbowl of deceit, back-stabbing, and law breaking.
    And, by the way, ‘David Cisco’, there is an ancient tablet from the Sumerian culture, dated 1500 yrs. B.C., that details the existence of a great and mighty flood whose waters reached the Heavens. But I’m sure you already knew this from your research.

    ReplyDelete
  10. While we’re dealing with ‘scientific facts’, Mr. ‘Cisco’, I would suggest that you ‘stumble’ your way back to the trial testimony and re-read it. And, by all means, take more than a couple of days to study it.

    I’m sure you’re quite aware (from your research) that, up until a month from trial date, Facebook had never mentioned any ‘On-Sale Bar’; they were going after a ‘prior art’ argument.

    Then, inexplicably, veteran judge Joseph J. Farnan steps down from the case. Why? And only to be replaced by upstart, Leonard Stark. Pretty lofty case for a first timer, wouldn’t you say?

    Then, Facebook does a switcheroo, and flips its argument; they concede prior art (only after political allies in the USPTO tell them no prior art exists) and instead go after this silly ‘On-Sale Bar’ angle.

    And, on cue, Judge Stark blocks Leader from preparing new witnesses for the claim, just one month before trial mind you. Stark even goes as far as not allowing Leader from getting testimony from Professor James P. Chandler- you remember him right? He’s only the guy who introduced Leader to Boston Scientific (and knew first hand that no offer for Leader2Leader had been made).

    That would have put a stake in Facebook’s heart, since Chandler would have been the ultimate expert authority, being the author of the Federal Trade Secrets Act and the Economic Espionage Act. His truthfulness would not have been questioned. But, I guess we’ll never know that, huh?

    As for Stark, he got his promised appointment to the bench from President Obama. But I wouldn’t want to open up another can of worms, because, as you say, we ‘creationists’ see everything as a conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Remember, judicial fraud discredits a judge's actions, so Cisco's attempt to change the subject back to on-sale bar is nothing but misdirection. Now the subject is judge rigging by The White House, Judiciary, Pelosi and Reid. These are the people who learned starting back in 2003 that they could fabricate the Zuckerberg boy band story and get the public to swallow the bait, with help from Wall Street, Hollywood and their lemmings in Mainstream Media. This whole made up Facebook story will turn out to be the stock manipulation scheme of all time. The American Tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Since Steve n Amy mention Boston Scientific. I find it more than curious that Boston Scientific appears to be a darling investment for these same funds. Who's side was Professor James P. Chandler on anyway? Just askin'.

    Cisco is trying to baffle nonlawyers with more Rules of Civil Procedure. Sorry Cisco, we're past your court parlor games. We have your number. Those tricks are merely the wink and nod games you play with the judge. Those rules make no difference to justice when the judge is on your payroll. They're meant only to turn away those layman who smell a rat and start poking around.

    We've learned your rules now. Now we need to drive you jokers out of the professional, and install people who take their solemn public oaths seriously. Go directly to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200. Only the whistle blowers may likely get off lightly. Get moving.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If leader tried to get Chandler to testify as an expert witness than of course the court didn't allow it. Presumably leader was trying to have him testify that leader's offers to sell the product weren't in fact offers by virtue of non disclosure agreements. That would be a legal conclusion and witnesses cannot testify as to legal conclusions. This is trial procedure 101.

    Leader did introduce evidence of the non disclosure agreements but the jury found they hadn't been used with all companies. Thus the on sale bar verdict. Looking at this evidence I don't see any evidence of judge bias or jury confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the same Cisco Kid who just stumbled on this site a few days ago? Here we read the liar and deceiver now trying to make a cogent legal argument. Priceless. Leader's testimony was the ONLY testimony at trial on the nondisclosure agreements and showed clearly their secrecy practices were thorough. That is not even the primary issue with on-sale bar anyway. Facebook had the burden to produce bonafide offers. Tellingly, Facebook didn't even have the courage to put up their own expert witness to verify their so-called "evidence." (probably because they couldn't find an expert to lie for them to that extent... and since there was no evidence of any offers). The reality is that Facebook introduced only attorney-fabricated smoke and mirrors meant to fool the jury with courtroom TV theater. After all, that's what Facebook pays for at $1000 an hour. Hired liars.

      Last time I checked, smoke and mirrors are not evidence. In any event, Judge Leonard P. Stark was Nancy Pelosi's and Barack Obama's fix on the bench. Add to Stark's prejudice his substantial Facebook holdings and we see a toxic brew. Stark's inattention to the Supreme Court's Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. test of alleged on-sale bar evidence DISCREDITS his actions.Judge bias is illegal and grounds for reversal. This bias overshadows everything now that we have moved into the criminal arena.

      Delete
  14. Stephen Preziosi, a lawyer for the activists,

    Baidu the perfect paradox: That it will allow the suppression of free speech, in the name of free speech,"
    Chinese Internet company Baidu Inc on Thursday won the dismissal of a U.S. lawsuit by pro-democracy activists who complained that Baidu illegally suppressed political speech on China's most widely used Internet search engine.

    Baidu kept users from seeing their work, unlike users of other search engines such as Microsoft's Bing and Google and SCRIBD? (regressive organizations)
    BUT Pelosi holds major interests in Baidu, Inc., sometimes called "The Chinese Facebook." Baidu and Facebook are quit similar. Is that just coincidental NO. the coincident is they know and new that facebook was stolen?.

    Robin Yangong Li established a Cayman Island presence to hold his Baidu stock, naming the company "Handsome Reward."



    ReplyDelete
  15. We should stop referring to judges and Congressmen as "Honorable". Those who are honorable know they are and need no reminding. However, those who aren't honorable (more every day!) should not have their egos inflated with hot air.

    ReplyDelete

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 afi@leader.com and we will post them.