BOYCOTT NCAA MARCH MADNESS? COPYRIGHT-GATE

Constitutional rights advocates demand that NCAA stop its copyright infringement in social media; ask Congress to preserve Zuckerberg's 28 concealed hard drives; call Ohio State and Harvard to task

---

Contributing Writers | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Updated Mar. 21, 2013 | PDF

New Update Mar. 18, 2013 CORRUPTION WATCH (New: PDF Version) Click here to jump to a list of judges, attorneys and Facebook cronies who are implicated in the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. A new US v. Paul Ceglia filing reveals even more related corruption? The New York U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara who filed criminal charges against Paul Ceglia over matters already being tried in a Ceglia v. Zuckerberg civil case is a former attorney for Gibson Dunn LLP. This is a flagrant conflict of interest since Gibson Dunn is Facebook's attorney in that case. Suspiciously, Gibson Dunn LLP is deeply implicated in the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. Ceglia's attorneys name U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in this suit, but we will leave Holder off the corruption watch list until we learn more. AFI believes this Ceglia criminal suit is likely misdirection after Ceglia's attorneys started dismantling the Facebook forensic expert testimony. We believe they were getting uncomfortably close to gaining access to the 28 Zuckerberg hard drives and Harvard Email archives. That evidence could prove Ceglia's innocence as well as prove that Zuckerberg stole Leader Technologies' source code to start Facebook in "one to two weeks."

Is Facebook the Evil Twin of Leader Technologies?

(Mar. 11, 2013)—The evidence is now apparent that Facebook stole the core technology used to run Facebook from Leader Technologies of Columbus, Ohio. Equally apparent to any reasonable person are Facebook's efforts to corrupt the federal justice system. The "evidence" was fabricated by attorneys and federal judges intent on handing Facebook a win at all costs. (Federal Circuit Judges Lourie's & Moore's Facebook stock made handsome returns in the FB IPO that occurred during the case. See "Wall of Shame" in previous post.) Even so, Leader still proved that Facebook is guilty on 11 of 11 counts of stealing Leader's invention. These circumstances beg the question: "Where is the Facebook attorney hubris coming from?" Attorney arrogance is one thing. However, this level of disdain for U.S. law and justice is gargantuan.

Barbarians at the Gate

Facebook's only defenders appear to be their lawyers. Did these lawyers orchestrate this theft from inception? After all, we now see from public records that Fenwick & West LLP represented Facebook's first financier and director Accel Partners and James W. Breyer from 1998. Was Fenwick steering the best technology from other clients to Accel? After all, Accel was funded by KKR, the subject of the book Barbarians at the Gate. These lawyers appear to be posting haughty statements on this site like "Leader was put on notice" (about Facebook's copyright violations). This statement is backwards since it is the owner of the intellectual property that puts the copyright infringer on notice, and not the other way around. Think about it. Is it legal for your attorney to be feeding your trade secrets out the backdoor to bigger clients in order to blindside you with legal claims? This amounts to JUDICIAL ESPIONAGE. Facebook here appears to be telegraphing its conspiracy to defraud by indicating that they have been staging their theft from the beginning by stealing property, then taunting Leader into coming after them. Is this the haughtiness of lawyers who believe they have the American justice system in their hip pockets?

Leader's Michael McKibben
collaborated with Pope John Paul II
(see YouTube, esp. last 6 minutes).
Photo: Wikipedia

Untold histories of glasnost and peristroika

A new YouTube video has appeared (click here to view this video) showing how Leader Technologies' lead inventor Michael T. McKibben was a friend of Pope John Paul II. This video is remarkable on several levels. First, it is an important untold history about the beginnings of glasnost and peristroika in the Soviet Union. Second, it shows that Michael McKibben has earned his moral and ethical stripes. He, his wife Nancy, and a Gospel music group called Living Sound, collaborated with the Pope when he was Cardinal Karol Woytyla in Poland, during the height of the Cold War. The video even contains the Pope's own words about McKibben's efforts.

Click image to access video

The video begins by saying that this story has not been told before now because certain people involved had been threatened by the Soviet secret police (KGB), some went to Soviet prison, and one person was murdered by Soviet prison guards. Another layer of this story is the fact that certain money-interests in the "New Russia," namely Facebook's second largest investor that bought out Facebook insiders for billions of dollars in dubious unregulated transactions, are still warring against the rule of law; perhaps using their old KGB tricks of the trade, like lawfare (DST aka Digital Sky aka Yuri Milner/Goldman Sachs). Old habits die hard? Their new uniform appears to be a hoodie instead of jackets with hammer-and-cycle buttons. We hope this teaser will motivate you to watch the entire 30-minute video. Stay with it to the end, because much of the story about Pope John Paul II is described in the last six minutes. The cool, funky music background is by The Bull City Syndicate of North Carolina. The narration is text-based, so it is best viewed on a computer. We had to stop it in places to read it all. Also, suggest you select HD and Full Screen so you are able to read all the text. It is a fascinating Tom Clancy-type story, only this one actually happened!

McKibben organized music concerts in numerous places around the world like the USSR, Poland and Northern Ireland. In Belfast his efforts were described by Lord Hylton as more effective at helping bring peace to "The Troubles" of Northern Ireland "than all the pronouncements of the British Parliment." He organized joint Catholic-Protestant events while the two sides were still bombing each other. His friendship with Pope John Paul II is mind blowing. Who would've thought a group of young musicians could make such a difference? But it appears they did.

Pope John Paul II vs. Bernie Madoff

Bottom line, it appears Facebook is the evil twin of Leader Technologies. The moral contrast between McKibben and Zuckerberg could not be more striking.

In Michael McKibben we read a story of a young musician-engineer who hit the road in his youth to make the world a better place, then invented social networking; spending $10 million and 145,000 man-hours to do it. We see a person who collaborated with moral giants on the scale of Gandhi and Martin Luther King.

In Mark Zuckerberg we read a likely true story of a young pathological liar who stole McKibben's social networking invention (by his own admission in "one or two weeks"), with the help of well-healed former PayPal handlers and the law firm Fenwick & West. We see a person who collaborates with financiers dubbed "the barbarians at the gate" and other global financiers who make Bernie Maddoff and Charles Ponzi look like rookies.

Facebook appears to be Leader Technologies' evil twin?

---

ORIGINAL POST

(Feb. 25, 2013)—In the wake of advertising leader Erik Lohmeier's call to the advertising industry to stop its social media copyright violations, and just a week before NCAA March Madness, the growing judicial and U.S. Patent Office (USPTO) corruption scandal (see sidebar) could spoil March Madness, the biggest money-maker of the year for the NCAA.

Most people know that the NCAA jealously guards its copyrights, logo and broadcasts. They rely heavily on Facebook to promote their events (357,000 "Likes" on Facebook promoting March Madness as of today.)

NCAA double standard?

However, constitutional rights advocates are now calling on the NCAA to fix their substantial violation of the copyrights and intellectual property of a small innovation company in Columbus, Ohio named Leader Technologies.

The engine running Facebook (and on which the NCAA now heavily relies for its advertising and promotion) is Leader's creative work, for which Leader holds multiple patents and copyrights. A "Boycott the NCAA?" handbill just appeared today (click here for the "NCAA Boycott?" handbill).

AFI encourages readers to circulate this flyer to the colleges and universities in your area. Ask them to consider boycotting NCAA events, including March Madness, until they either stop the copyright infringement, or start licensing the underlying technology upon which they rely for their social media promotions.

Universities ripe for Copyright-gate sanctions?

(Updated Mar. 1, 2013)—The following universities rely heavily on Facebook for communications. Since universities like to pride themselves on respect for the copyrights and other intellectual property of their professors, students and researchers, the double-standard is evident since Facebook has been proven to be the pirated invention of Ohio-based Leader Technologies.

The mainstream media appears to be either asleep at the wheel or drunk on the Facebook Kool-Aid. A free investigative press is one of the pillars of a healthy democracy. However, if the paid professionals are not going to do their jobs, perhaps that task now falls upon their younger colleagues. Many social movements have emerged from student movements—where students take up issues that their parents won't touch, simply because its the right thing to do. The mainstream media has been deafeningly silent on the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement case; a case that has now become a judicial corruption scandal of enormous scale. Have university administrations also drunk the Facebook Kool-Aid? Have students themselves, perhaps unwittingly?

Does the task of preserving a free press fall upon student journalists? Here is your chance to expose Copyright-gate, the biggest copyright infringement scandal in American history. So why haven't you heard about it? Exactly the point. If the silence gets any louder, we'll need earplugs.

Are you the next Bob Woodward?

Readers are encouraged to write these next Bob Woodwards. Provide them a link to the flyer. Encourage them to investigate and help fix this growing property theft cancer. The fact is that the entire social media industry was founded on a lie that has been perpetrated by a group of well-heeled tech financiers who were determined get what they wanted, no matter who they had to steal it from, or buy off, like juries, federal judges and the Patent Office. They found in Mark Zuckerberg a willing boy band leader.

The following are the university journalists email contact lists that our readers have compiled so far. Stay tuned, we will be adding to this list often.

University:	Univ. Group (click to get Contact List):	Copyright-gate Flyer: (click to get Handbill):
The Ohio State University	The Lantern	OSU flyer
University of Cincinnati	The Student Record	UC flyer
Ohio University	The Post	OU flyer
University of Arizona	UANews	UofA flyer
University of Minnesota	Minnesota Daily	UofM flyer
Harvard University	The Harvard Crimson	Harvard flyer
University of Texas	The Daily Texan	Texas flyer
Georgetown University	Georgetown Administration & Faculty	Georgetown flyer
Notre Dame University	Notre Dame Administration & Faculty	Notre Dame flyer
DePaul University	DePaul The DePaulia Student Journalists & Administration Leadership	DePaul flyer
Loyola University	Loyola Student Journalists & Educators	Loyola flyer
New Mar. 13 Boston College	Boston College Journalists & Educators	Boston College flyer

Congress asked to preserve Zuckerberg's concealed 28 hard drives of evidence

Zuckerberg withheld more information than these computers contained, and told Leader they were "lost."

In addition, a new round of congressional inquiries are being requested in order to preserve the 28 Zuckerberg hard drives that Facebook concealed during the Leader v. Facebook patent infringement trial. In that trial Leader proved that Facebook was guilty on 11 of 11 counts. Had Leader had access to those drives, they could have proved actual theft of source code, which would be a criminal offense, and plenty of motive to hide them. (Click here to read a copy of the congressional inquiry request.)

Notice to the NCAA on copyright infringement, Americans For Innovation, Feb. 25, 2013

Congressional Inquiry asks Congress to protect Zuckerberg's 28 concealed computer hard drives from destruct...

Facebook's attorneys exploiting the weaknesses of the jury system to steal inventions?

New: Updated Mar. 19, 2013

Corruption Watch - FACEBOOK - American Democracy Requires Trust, Mar. 18, 2013

Click "Comments" below to leave a comment.

ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE CALLS ON SOCIAL MEDIA ADVERTISERS TO LICENSE FROM LEADER TECHNOLOGIES VOLUNTARILY

Was "it's free!" the first signal it was a stolen creative work? Should users boycott unlicensed advertisers like Microsoft?

---

Contributing Writers | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Updated Feb. 22, 2013 | PDF

Notice to Readers:
Facebook is censoring Leader v. Facebook discussions. Learn more.

Should social media users boycott advertisers
until the industry fixes their licensing with Leader?
Image: From Crackovia TV, Barcelona, Spain

Bernie-Madoff-like Leader v. Facebook Cover-up in Wash. DC?

 (Update Feb. 22, 2013)—DC Bar Deputy Counsel Trish Harris again "declines to investigate"  the complaints of judicial misconduct in Leader v. Facebook (click here for AFI editorial and copy of Ms. Harris' letter PDF also HTML here). She refuses to take even a step toward the evident misconduct involving two of the three judges in the Leader v. Facebook case. Those judges actually held stock in Facebook while Facebook went public during the case. This does not even account for the court's refusal to disclose any family members who invested in the Facebook IPO. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges and Judicial Employees (ethics rules) say they are not allowed to do unless those judges and court employees disclose their conflict of interest and disqualify themselves from all involvement in the case. The more the Washington legal community tries to cover this up, the more this controversy grows.

Ms. Harris did not say she would not investigate, she just "declined to investigate." What's that? "Boss, I didn't say I wouldn't do my job, I just decline to do my job." Does any thinking person believe that NONE of the Federal Circuit judges and their extended family members invested in the Facebook IPO? Didn't think so. This fact alone, as a matter of law, discredits the Federal Circuit decision in Leader v. Facebook.

Ohio citizens demand action from their media

Update (Feb. 21, 2013)—Ohioans too are calling on their local media to start investigating the Leader v. Facebook misconduct and support their own. They highlight the hypocrisy of WBNS10TV (CBS) depending upon Facebook for their audience ratings, while ignoring the injustices being done to their own Ohio inventor and visionary. Here are  flyers now being distributed in Ohio: (1) WBNS10TV (Columbus), (2) NBC4i.com, (3) WSYX-ABC6 and (4) FOX-28. AFI recommends that readers send these links to other Ohio media and opinion makers, including Ohio Governor John Kasich, who just announced his Jobs Ohio initiative.

AT&T, AMEX, State Farm, P&G and Allstate shareholders asked to take a stand against Facebook piracy

Update (Feb. 19, 2013)—AT&T is the #1 advertiser on Facebook, AMEX (American Express) is 9th, P&G (Procter & Gamble) is 12th and State Farm is 15th. Their shareholders are being called upon to support innovation and take a stand against Facebook's piracy. The grassroots movement Responsible Shareholders United says boycotts are next if the social media industry doesn't do the right thing. Here are the flyers:

1. AT&T (largest advertiser on Facebook) Investor relations
2. American Express (AMEX) (9th largest) Investor releations
3. Procter & Gamble (P&G) (12th largest) Investor contacts
4. State Farm (15th largest) Contact State Farm Bank | Insurance | Mutual
5. Allstate (29th largest) Contact Allstate

AFI readers are encouraged to download these flyers and distribute them widely to thought leaders. Readers are posting suggestions about where to send these flyers in the Comments. You are encouraged to keep up your efforts, which have been likened by some rights activists to Chinese water torture. Drip. Drip. Drip.

ORIGINAL POST

Albuquerque, New Mexico (Feb. 15, 2013)—Advertising executive Erik Lohmeier, past chair of the Council of Governors, and current chair of the Knowledge Center for the American Advertising Federation (AAF), says that advertisers and users of social media should start licensing from Leader Technologies their use of social networking. See his analysis below.

Lohmeier’s premise and questions are straightforward:

1. Social networking had a beginning.
2. If that beginning was intentional, it deserves proper credit.
3. Leader Technologies holds multiple patents and copyrights on social media.
4. A federal judgment says Facebook is “literally infringing” Leader’s patent.
5. The entire “social” industry is probably infringing by inference.
6. The advertising industry now meticulously credits creative works from artists, cartoonists, illustrators, musicians, producers, editors, etc.
7. Big software companies like Microsoft and Adobe get licenses.
8. Small business innovators deserve the same protections.

He posted a quick four-question “Licensing Equality Survey” in which anyone can participate. We encourage our readers to make their views known by participating.

Microsoft supports anti-piracy... only when their rights are abused?

AFI asked Lohmeier why the advertising industry has not investigated this elephant in the room, Lohmeier replied, "We make purchases based upon numbers of impressions that can be validated. That's it. We don't normally dig deeper. If the impressions are validated, we buy accordingly." AFI then asked why questions have not been asked about how Facebook acquires its impressions, he said, "We accept the representations of the provider in good faith. We wouldn't normally know if a provider has acquired their customer data improperly."

Lohmeier was asked if the industry's good faith toward Facebook has been misplaced, he said, "Yes, having followed Leader v. Facebook closely, there's no question in my mind that social networking was invented by Michael McKibben and Leader Technologies and not Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook." Asked if this fact changes his view of social media buying, he said, "Most definitely. We're at great risk as an industry until we do right by Leader." He continued, "if we forced every idea creator to file a lawsuit to protect his or her creations, our creative industries would grind to a halt. We must choose to do the right thing regarding licensing, without waiting for lawyers and courts who often get it wrong anyway. Facebook knows what the right thing is. Sadly, it appears that they must be forced to do it."

AFI reached out to Facebook for comment, but they did not return the call as of press time.

Leader Technologies Chairman Michael McKibben said, "Microsoft made a huge push to stop software piracy years ago. I supported them in that effort. It's the height of hypocrisy for them to now support and encourage Facebook's infringement of Leader's creative works. They are one of Facebook's largest shareholders and advertisers."

Is "social media" a house that advertising built
on shifting intellectual property sand?
Photo: Againstcronycapitalism.org

Huge investments in social media are at risk

Lohmeier emphasizes that the huge investments being made in social media are at risk until this important intellectual property licensing matter is resolved. Otherwise, app builders and advertisers are all investing in a social media house built on shifting sand.

Here’s Erik Lohmeier’s analysis:

Erik Lohmeier. "Intellectual Property Obligations of Social Media Purveyors and Consumers." ANALY...

Also download at GoogleDrive (click here).

Also download at LeaderDrive (click here).

Start thinking about alternatives to these brands

According to The Wall Street Journal, Facebook's "Top 50" largest advertisers in order of amount of advertising were (Source: comScore, Nov. 2, 2011):

1. AT&T
2. Experian Interactive
3. Google
4. eBay
5. Microsoft
6. Verizon
7. Walt Disney
8. Netflix
9. American Express
10. Scottrade
11. Progressive
12. Procter & Gamble
13. General Motors
14. Weight Watchers
15. State Farm
16. Toyota
17. InterActiveCorp
18. Blizzard Entertainment
19. JP Morgan Chase
20. Capella University
21. TransUnion Interactive
22. Citigroup
23. Capital One
24. Apollo Group
25. Privacy Matters 1-2-3
26. Comcast
27. Ford
28. Sony
29. Allstate
30. Nissan
31. MyLife.com
32. Time Warner Cable
33. Avis
34. Kellogg
35. Starwood Hotels & Resorts
36. Chrysler
37. GEICO/Bershire Hathaway
38. CBS
39. Lifelock
40. JustFabulous
41. General Mills
42. Deutsche Telekom
43. Full Sail
44. Time Warner
45. Guthy-Renker
46. Radio Shack
47. Unilever
48. DeVry
49. QuiBids
50. Aetna

Start thinking about BOYCOTT

Start thinking about alternatives to the providers listed above, if we have to start boycotting to "encourage" the social media world to respect Leader Technologies, the creator of the very intellectual property upon which it depends.

Here are 15 opening suggestions to start thinking about what you, your friends and colleagues can do to put teeth into this boycott:

• Boycott #1 MOBILE ADS: Do not click on mobile ads.
• Boycott #2 WEB ADS: Do not click on the ads that appear on a friend page, fan page, timeline, wall or news feed.
• Boycott #3 BOOTLEG MICROSOFT AGAIN?: Start using bootlegged copies of Microsoft software again? (Microsoft is represented by Facebook's attorney Gibson Dunn LLP and is a very large Facebook shareholder. They are also a director of The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA). Unjust backroom "old boy" games were played at the FCBA in the Leader v. Facebook case?) (Revive Bootlegging Rationale: Microsoft is not supporting Leader Technologies intellectual property rights, so why should their rights be supported either? Apparently they don't care anymore?)
• Boycott #4 AVOID BRANDS: When you have a choice, do not choose a Top 50 brand (above). Make sure you tell the vendor why you are not choosing these brands. That word will eventually bubble up to the offending brand executives who hate such uncertainty (so do their shareholders)?
• Boycott #5 DELAY PAYMENTS: If you owe the brand money; delay payments; force them to spend money to collect it. This lowers their profits due to the extra collections costs? All quite legal. Be sure to tell the vendor why you are in "go slow" mode.
• Boycott #6 ENGAGE FRIENDS & COLLEAGUES: Ask members of your church, synagogue, mosque, meeting hall to join the boycott?
• Boycott #7 WRITE CONGRESS: Ask your state and federal congresspersons to introduce legislation in support of Leader Technologies' constitutional rights?
• Boycott #8 STOP DONATING: Stop donating to causes that are endorsed by the brand. Tell the charity why you are stopping your donations?
• Boycott #9 SIGN PETITIONS: Sign Leader Technologies' petition and get your friends to; complete Erik Lohmeier's Licensing Equality Survey.
• Boycott #10 STOP USING FB, MS, LINKEDIN, ETC: Stop using Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, Instagram, Microsoft or any other apps running on these platforms for anything other than to publicize the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. Tell them why you are logging off for good?
• Boycott #11 STOP SHOPPING AT WAL-MART: Stop using products from companies funded by Facebook directors James W. Breyer and his venture capital company Accel Partners. Stop shopping at the likes of Wal-Mart where Facebook's director James W. Breyer is also a director during the Mexican bribery scandal? Tell Wal-Mart why you are stopping?
• Boycott #12 PUBLICIZE MISCONDUCT OF LEADER V. FACEBOOK JUDGES: Publicize the misconduct of these judges at every opportunity?
• Boycott #13 PUBLICIZE MISCONDUCT OF FACEBOOK STAKEHOLDERS: Publicize the misconduct of Facebook stakeholders at every opportunity?
• Boycott #14 PROTEST SUMMERS, SANDBERG, MILNER, HOFFMAN, ANDREESSEN, THIEL, DAVIDSON (FENWICK), BREYER, GATES, BALMER (MICROSOFT): Take every opportunity, where these Facebook puppet masters appear in public, to mock and ridicule their malevolent conduct that is so destructive to our democracy and morality (Lawrence Summers, Sheryl Sandberg, Yuri Milner, Reid Hoffman, Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, Gordon Davidson, James Breyer, Bill Gates & Steve Balmer (Microsoft))?
• Boycott #15 STOP USING CROOKED BROKERS & LAWYERS: Stop employing the likes of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation, Fenwick & West LLP, Cooley Godward LLP and Gibson Dunn LLP who are destroying the underpinnings of our democracy?

* * *

Click "Comment" below to make a comment. Alternatively, send an email to AFI at Email a Comment to AFI and will post it for you.

LEADER V. FACEBOOK WALL OF SHAME

Judges go to jail for far less serious misconduct; Facebook users should pay Leader fees voluntarily; its the right thing to do since Facebook stole the technology

Contributing Writers | Opinion | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION  | Jan. 29, 2013, Updated Feb. 04, 2013 | PDF

Facebook Gestapo censorship of Leader v. Facebook "private" conversations verified

Fig. 1—So much for the Facebook "Open" Graph. Open for who? The Facebook secret police? Lessons from the KGB's "Top 10 lessons learned to undermine a free market?" A handbook from Yuri Milner, Facebook's "Man in Moscow" (and 2nd largest shareholder)?

Remember, Milner worked for the Russian Bank Menatep, caught laundering $10 billion in Russian mob money, and diverting almost $5 billion in IMF and World Bank funds. He did this in the years preceding his multi-billion investments in Facebook with oligarch Alisher Asmanov (and Goldman Sachs-Moscow, recipient of $X in US taxpayer bailout funds).

Feb. 11, 2013 Update)—AFI received troubling reports this weekend that Facebook is censoring users who are working to publicize the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. In one report Facebook PREVENTED friend-ing between a user and the Chief of Staff of the House of Representatives. In this report, the message from Facebook was essentially that the user was limited to friend-ing friends (and not politicians). This form of censorship, if true (the news source is credible), is against our most fundamental Freedom of Speech rights embodied in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But of course, such conduct is consistent with the massive abuse of rights that we are seeing from the federal courts in Leader v. Facebook. Here's the comment. We suggest that readers forward this link to decision influencers in their networks.

 (Feb. 13, 2013 12:18 PM EST): AFI is receiving more verified reports of Facebook Gestapo censorship of "private" conversations among Facebook users whenever the topic turns to the growing Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal. We will not publish the exact contents to preserve the anonymity of the whistle blowers. Of course, readers should know that the "FB Gestapo" is able to search on this simple key phrase and find EVERY conversation on the planet that has used this phrase, and then start targeting those individuals for censorship. This is true for any data in Facebook, including your so-called "private" conversations. Private in Facebook-speak means the exact opposite. Any advertiser can purchase it, and any Facebook insider can search it. Some euphemistically call this activity "data mining."

Facebook attorney explaining
 the Facebook user license in
which you gave up your rights.

Fenwick & West LLP;

Cooley Godward LLP;

Gibson Dunn LLP;

White & Case LLP;
The Federal Circuit Bar Assoc;
DC Bar Assoc;
US Supreme Court;
US Supreme Court clerks;
US  Federal Circuit Clerk; and 

US Federal Circuit

through secret advocacy.

And of course, this immoral conduct is perfectly "legal." Why you ask? Because Facebook's attorneys wrote a deceptive user license agreement full of enough twists and turns to make magician Harry Houdini blush. You agreed to hand over all your data to Facebook as the price you paid to get "free" use of the platform, which of course, is stolen from Leader Technologies. More immorality, the theft is illegal.

Immorality  Illegality. Why do the Facebook users permit such appalling abuse of rights? What does this say about the state of morals in America? By the way, Facebook's license does say that you "own" your data . . . until you share it, then you give it up to them forever. So, since a social network is about sharing, voile, you can't take back anything you've shared with even one other person. Therefore, you've given up everything. Very clever, eh?

(Feb. 11, 2013 16:38 PM EST): We have just received a report that Facebook is censoring links to the page for "Lawless America" which is investigating judicial corruption in America. This blogger has been conversing in private chat mode with Lawless America before being blocked; first sporadically, now permanently. So much for the "private" in private chat. We encourage our readers to follow Lawless America and inform them about the growing Leader v. Facebook judicial and Patent Office corruption scandal.

"A favorite tactic of wrongdoing is misdirection. Misdirection creates questions and doubt continuously. Your target will then spend all their time defending against the shadows you create." —Disinformation Expert

---

Patent Office Cover-up in Leader v. Facebook

Judicial Facebook Love-Fest?

We know at least two of the three Federal Circuit judges in Leader v. Facebook hold Facebook stock. How many judges and staff (and their families) at the U.S. Patent Office also hold Facebook stock? Is American jurisprudence a veritable Facebook Love-Fest? Whose driving this corruption of previously venerable American institutions? Proof of cover-up here. "You may not work on any matter where . . . you or your relatives within the third degree . . . could be substantially affected by the matter's outcome." Code of Conduct 3F(2) (p. 10). Like Facebook stock appreciation?!

(Feb. 8, 2013 Update)—The specter of judicial bribery is spreading to the U.S. Patent Office. AFI has just received new documents clearly showing a cover-up. These documents need no editorial comment. They speak for themselves. Facebook appears to be railroading some sort of "re-examination" proceeding through their paid staff (and paid administrative judges?) at the USPTO? Leader has already won these arguments at trial and in two reexaminations.

Click here to read the USPTO Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Leader v. Facebook cover-up documents: GoogleDocs

The three administrative judges who approved what is in effect a FOURTH review of the same worn out, losing Facebook prior art arguments are:

1. Judge Allen R. MacDonald
2. Judge Stephen C. Siu
3. Judge Meredith C. Petravick

Should these judges join the Wall of Shame? We invite readers to investigate these judges and their staffs, whose names are identified on the blanked-out FOIA documents.

ORIGINAL POST

(Jan. 29, 2013)—Judicial bribery appears to be all the rage in Washington these days. Therefore, should it be any surprise that Mark Zuckerberg, the one proven guilty of infringing Leader Technologies' patent on 11 of 11 counts, would use attorneys who have no qualms about bribing federal judges? Their partners in Moscow certainly know how it works. It's a strategic warfare tactic they developed called "lawfare" to corrupt the American judicial system. Interesting question.

Facebook's main law firms involved in Leader v. Facebook are Gibson Dunn LLP, Cooley Godward LLP and White & Case LLP, not to mention that Facebook's inside counsel Samuel O'Rourke worked previously for Heidi Keefe and Mark Weinstein at White & Case. The other three attorneys that play prominently in this case are Gibson Dunn's Thomas Hungar (also Microsoft's attorney), Cooley's Jeffrey Norberg and Michael Rhodes. Directing the whole effort is Facebook's attorney Theodore Ullyot who made out like a bandit in the Facebook IPO. Oh by the way, did we talk about the cozy relationship between these lawyers and The Federal Circuit Bar Association . . . and Supreme Court clerks?

Judicial bribery and payoffs in Leader v. Facebook seem all but certain considering the breadth and depth of the collective misconduct. It seems that these judges would have had no other motive than money to hand Facebook its dubious victory based on lies and turning blind eyes. They risked life appointments. See Wall of Shame below. If they have risked their jobs for Facebook, there must be an awfully big reward waiting somewhere. Students of Facebook speculate that there must be hundreds if not thousands of these accounts somewhere. They appear to have bought a lot of silence in the Caymans, Dubai, Bermuda, Moscow, Singapore, Hong Kong? The deeper this scandal gets, the more the mind wanders. You'll have to decide for yourself.

Where might the funds be parked?

It is public knowledge that Moscow-based DST (aka Digital Sky, aka Mail.ru, aka Yuri Milner) has a full time former Goldman Sachs executive named Alexander Tamas living in Dubai. Tamas moved from Goldman Sachs to DST in London just months before Goldman Sachs received approximately $16 billion in taxpayer bailout funds, managed by President Obama's bailout appointee, Lawrence H. "Larry" Summers. Milner and Facebook COO Sheryl K. Sanders are protégés of Summers from his World Bank days in the early 1990's. Within about six months of the bailout, some $3 billion flowed in from Milner/DST and others overseas to purchase Facebook insider stock. Zuckerberg's former speech writer says in Boy Kings that the Facebook employees were strongly encouraged to sell, then they were effectively muzzled (Katherine Losse, 2012: "no one asked if the Russian's money was clean . . . no one wanted or was allowed to know") when they questioned these dubious Russian transactions. American investors were locked out. All coincidences, of course.

Judges who accept bribes and givers of bribes should go to jail. For example, former attorney Paul Minor and former judges Wes Teel and John Whitfield are serving sentences for corruption and racketeering after Minor backed loans to the judges in exchange for favorable court rulings. See “Corrupt Mississippi Judges and Former-Attorney who Bribed them Head Back to Prison. Bad Lawyer, Jun. 14, 2011.

Facebook's offer to the Leader v. Facebook judges: Stock value appreciation in exchange for a favorable ruling?

Given the way in which the Federal Circuit decisions were timed to Facebook-friendly events, like the beginning of their IPO road show, and a national Fox Business interview with Leader's Michael McKibben, the Court-Facebook love-fest is apparent. Of course, they say its all coincidence. Yeh, right.

Promises of Facebook stock appreciation from the IPO in exchange for a favorable Leader v. Facebook ruling would be a strong motive for corruption, especially if you are arrogant enough to think no one can touch you. How is that different from Paul Minor loaning judges money to pay their debts? Did these Leader v. Facebook judges seriously think we would not notice?

If one is tempted to doubt how widespread judicial corruption is, read this from the U.S. Department of Justice’s website:

"Bribery is endemic to our courts, because those persons vested with authority to prosecute judicial bribery are indifferent. They fail to do their job." OpenDOJ

Wall of Shame

In addition to public outrage and shaming (which is growing in popularity given the lack of self-policing in the legal community), the Senate and House Judiciary Committees, as well as other committees, like the House Committee on Government Reform, are the primary legislative checks and balances.

David Luban writes “Equality before the law, like universal suffrage, holds a privileged place in our political system, and to deny equality before the law delegitimizes that system. . . . when these rights are denied, the expectation that the affronted parties should continue to respect the political system . . . that they should continue to treat it as a legitimate political system--has no basis.” Lawyers and Justice: An Ethical Study, 251, 264-66 n.12 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1988).

Leader v. Facebook—the most egregious example of judicial corruption ever? A veritable Facebook love-fest.

We have before us in Leader v. Facebook perhaps the most egregious example of judicial corruption in the history of American jurisprudence.

The Federal Courts:
Hacker Way or Bust

We have a federal district court judge Leonard P. Stark permitting Facebook to add significant new claims (too late; at least by the Rules) while denying Leader time to prepare their defenses to those new claims. We have this same Judge Stark who ignored two of his own key jury instructions, and ignored the jury’s own words to him that they made their on-sale bar decision against Leader without evidence.

This same judge effectively practiced bait-and-switch by first instructing Leader's attorneys to answer Interrogatory No. 9 only in the 2009 present tense, but then allowed the jury to interpret it in the past tense anyway. In short, he handed Facebook attorneys the exact confusing answer they needed to confuse the jury. Did we mention that he permitted Facebook to show the jury a heavily doctored Interrogatory No. 9 (60% was blanked out) at trial and denied Leader's request to show the un-doctored version?

We have a Federal Circuit panel of three judges (Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore, Evan J. Wallach, along with Randall R. Rader and Clerk Jan Horbaly) who did not disqualify themselves since some of them held stock in Facebook while Facebook went public in the largest tech IPO in US history—during the Leader v. Facebook appeal. We have this same panel ignoring the English definition of "is" and legal applications of verb tense, and utterly ignoring their own tests of the evidence.

Did we mention that the Federal Circuit's own opinion debunked all of Facebook's evidence by the time it was all said and done. Even they could not uphold Facebook's fabricated "evidence."

Not to be deterred from the Facebook love-fest, did we mention that the Federal Circuit panel then fabricated whole new arguments for Facebook in secret after Facebook’s arguments fell apart?

Did we mention that the panel did not give Leader a chance to challenge these new arguments?

Did we mention that the clerk's staffer Valerie White said the judges could not have seen, much less considered the arguments in a friend of the court motion supporting Leader before it was denied by her boss, Clerk of Court Horbaly? Did we mention this same clerk is tight with Facebook's chief appeals lawyer Thomas G. Hungar of Gibson Dunn LLP who also represents one of Facebook's largest shareholders, Microsoft?

Did we mention that the courts ignored damning new evidence that Mark Zuckerberg had withheld 28 hard drives from Leader before the trial? New testimony in another case indicates that these hard drives might prove that Zuckerberg had Leader's actual source code—that's potentially criminal and would have raised the stakes in the trial dramatically.

Did we mention that The Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Clerk of Courts collaborated to file a motion absolving the judges of their conflicts of interest, only to withdraw it secretly once their scheme was exposed? This motion was chock full of easily provable false and misleading statements.

Follow the links on the right sidebar of
this article to study the facts for yourself.

Several grassroots movements are developing to press this case until justice is served. They are drafting a set of criteria for what qualities a judge to be on the Wall of Shame:

1. Their corruption is based on publicly available facts.
2. They have ignored well-settled law.
3. They have a conflict of interest that breaches the Code of Conduct for federal judges.
4. They have ignored material new evidence.
5. They have made false statements.
6. They have violated Fifth and 14th Amendment due process

The Judicial Corruption WALL OF SHAME

The following Leader v. Facebook judges qualify for the Judicial Corruption Wall of Shame. What would motivate such a diverse group of judges with "for life" appointments from marching lockstep off the ethical cliff, unless bribed or coerced by promises of big money . . . on the side of course . . . wink, wink?

Judicial Corruption Wall of Shame
Alan D. Lourie	Kimberly A. Moore	Evan J. Wallach	Randall R. Rader	Jan Horbaly	Leonard P. Stark
Shame Checklist Subject: Judicial Conduct in Leader v. Facebook*
1.	Ignored well-accepted precedent tests Breach: Group One v. Hallmark Cards, Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc.
2.	Failed to disclose Facebook stock holdings Breach: Code of Conduct for United States Judges
3.	Ignored evidence that Zuckerberg concealed 28 hard drives Breach: Rules of Civil Procedure
4.	Made multiple knowingly false statements in judicial orders Breach: Rules of Profession Conduct
5.	Fabricated new appeals arguments for Facebook in secret Breach: 5th & 14th Amendment
6.	Failed to let Leader challenge the new arguments Breach: 5th & 14th Amendment
7.	Censored docket and avoided public exposure of misconduct Breach: Rules of Civil Procedure
8.	Ignored English language use of verb tense Breach: The Dictionary Act, Carr v. US
9.	Ignored own court orders re. interrogatories & jury instructions Breach: Rules of Civil Procedure

*Ref: Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Leader Technologies, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
No. 12-617 (U.S. Nov. 16, 2012).

Should Facebook users voluntarily pay user license fees to Leader in a citizens' movement to do the right thing since the courts have forsaken our laws and respect for property rights?

Interesting solution.

Open Question to Facebook Users: Voluntarily pay Leader a license fee for your use of their technology that Facebook has stolen?

What do you say Facebook users? If someone gave you the keys to a car to use freely, then told you six months later that the car was stolen, would you keep using the car? At the very least, wouldn't you want to pay the car owner for the privilege of continued use of his car?

* * *