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?

* * *

SUPREME COURT USHERS IN THE TECH ROBBER BARON AGE?

Refusal to hear Leader v. Facebook tells inventors not to bother filing patents and sharing their inventions with the world

---

Contributing Authors | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Updated Jan. 24, 2013 | PDF

Update: (Jan. 24, 2013)—Did regulatory breakdown at the SEC contribute to the corruption of the federal courts in Leader v. Facebook?

Some readers are asking what role regulatory breakdown at the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission may have played in the corruption of the courts in Leader v. Facebook. It’s an important question. Here’s why.

A roughly $3 billion “pre-IPO supplement” led to a Moscow, Russia company, Digital Sky and Yuri Milner, quietly acquiring (no questions asked) more than a 20% (est.) stake in Facebook before the IPO. If the SEC had properly investigated these transactions, and followed the law, it is highly unlikely that the IPO would have been allowed to proceed.

Facebook had obliterated the 500 shareholder rule for private companies. Also yet to be investigated is the possibility that U.S. taxpayer TARP bailout billions were used (via foreign bank accounts laundering the funds sent to them by Facebook's underwriters) to acquire these massive amounts of shares with cash.

Such activity is not unknown to Milner. Conspicuously absent from his current biographies is the fact that Milner worked for the CEO of the Russian Bank Menatep that was caught diverting $4.8 billion in IMF funds, as well as laundering $10 billion for the Russian mob. The money laundering also involved World Bank funds according to reports. Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg and Milner worked for Lawrence Summers, President Obama's bailout director, at the World Bank in the early 1990's. Summers helped architect the failed Russian voucher system that spawned the current system of Russian oligarchs. Sandberg and Milner helped him. Is this all mere coincidence?

Without a Facebook IPO, the Federal Circuit Judges Alan D. Lourie and Kimberly A. Moore would not have had the motivation to turn a blind eye to the U.S. Constitution in order to protect their undisclosed Facebook stock holdings. Even so, they were required by their Code of Conduct to disclose and disqualify. They did neither.

Since it appears that the federal courts and the press are in the wrongdoer's pockets (Judiciary and "Free" Press), we need to call upon Congress (Legislative) and the White House (Executive) to begin inquiries. If all four of our "check and balance" institutions are corrupted, we're as they say, "screwed" as a democracy.

Update: (Jan. 21, 2013)—"Judging Judges - Democracy demands ethical judicial conduct" blog features the conduct of the Federal Circuit in Leader v. Facebook. Click here go to the site. This site highlights the alleged misconduct of Judges Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore, Evan J. Wallach and Randall R. Rader, as well as the alleged misconduct of their super-clerk Jan Horbaly.

Facebook is the new tech robber baron

Update: (Jan. 16, 2013)—Yesterday a grassroots citizen's group named Concerned Americans United (CAU) called upon Congress to consider impeachment proceedings against the Federal Circuit judges and clerk in Leader v. Facebook.

Leader Technologies has bi-partisan support —from eminent American historian Professor Hy Berman, former political adviser to Vice President Hubert Humphrey to the Arizona Tea Party. Staffers for the House Committee on Government Reform have been receiving briefings, so this new request will not come as a surprise. In addition, various sites are posting the CAU flyers, click here to download the PDF.

Lawfare's 10 Steps To Corrupt The Federal Circuit

This Leader v. Facebook judicial misconduct debacle is exposing the "lawfare" tactics of Facebook's well-connected handlers.

Facebook's 10-step lawfare tactics go something like this, in our opinion:

1. ingratiate oneself in The Federal Circuit Bar Association "old boy" club—the nation's second largest bar association;
2. sell your pre-IPO stock to the Federal Circuit judges through one of your insider funds (in this case T.Rowe Price and Fidelity Contrafund, among others) so that the judge can use the "Gee Beav, I didn't know" excuse, if caught;
3. rape, pillage and plunder new inventions and make big money, quickly;
4. manipulate stock markets and regulators using unscrupulous law firms and their hired-liar "experts;"
5. clog the courts with interminable "motion practice;"
6. bully opponents with lies and bogus counter-suits (further clogging the courts);
7. influence judges to approve last minute new claims under the smoke screen of "judicial discretion;"
8. fabricate evidence that corrupt jurors and judges use to dish up your desired verdict;
9. on appeal, actually write the opinion for the Federal Circuit appeal judges yourself (wink wink); and
10. from there on out, simply deny, deny, deny all further protestations of injustice.

Voilà! There you have the ugly face of judicial corruption in America. (And we have the audacity to tell "lesser" countries not to do this?) This experience shows that judicial corruption need only be a subtle nod here, or there, in order to accomplish the desired result. As Facebook's current attorney (and Leader Technologies former attorney) Fenwick & West LLP's Gordon Davidson told the entrepreneurship class at Stanford University, "creativity" is figuring out what you want, then working backwards to achieve it. Too bad this approach appears to require breaches of ethics and laws—mere speed bumps to the unscrupulous?

ORIGINAL POST

(Jan. 11, 2013)—The Supreme Court’s acquiescence to the Facebook cabal by their refusal to hear the Leader v. Facebook appeal on Monday sent shock waves across the innovation world. The message to inventors is not to bother with the time and expense of filing for patents—because that work will simply evaporate in a federal court system corrupted by deep-pocket tech robber barons.

The decision gave the Court's blessing to the Facebook robber barons. Leader proved that Facebook stole their invention on 11 of 11 counts. Instead of paying Leader a suitable royalty, Facebook has paid off the courts to sustain an ill-gotten, tricky judgment made not by laws and facts, but by manipulation of judges, in our opinion. The manipulation seems evident in the court’s decisions which invalidated all of Facebook’s evidence, where the Court concocted new evidence in violation of Leader's constitutional rights to due process (Fifth and 14th Amendments), where the court ignored unequivocal new evidence that Mark Zuckerberg withheld 28 hard drives of discovery information from Leader, and where judges held undisclosed stock in Facebook during the proceedings.

"Behind the hoodies and flip-flops lurk businesspeople as rapacious as the black-suited and top-hatted industrialists of the late-19th century"

"The Ruthless Overlords of Silicon Valley" March 12, 2012

Property Theft by Courts

History teaches us that the ultimate robber barons are States that confiscate personal property, like the Soviet Union did after the Bolshevik Revolution. The Bolshevik courts did the bidding of their paymasters also. The Supreme Court's conduct in Leader v. Facebook is every bit as egregious. It is as if they gave blessing to a thief driving your car away, or rifling your wallet.

Logic says that it is not possible to rule in a party’s favor (Facebook) after all their evidence has been debunked . . . unless that party is paying off or otherwise influencing the judges. Judicial influence corrupts a democracy to its core.

Like the robber barons of the Industrial Age, these new tech robber barons have stolen the underlying resources needed to run their system; used the ill-gotten gains to quash competition; bought politicians, government officials, judges and clerks; impoverished investors by selling stock at inflated prices; and, propped up the stock price with foreign trades using laundered monies, likely including TARP funds via banks who were bailed out by the American taxpayer in 2008, in our opinion.

The New Tech Robber Baron

Totalitarian Tool: Property Theft

Abuse of the public trust on a massive scale is not new. The late 1800’s saw similar exploitative practices to amass wealth. The term “robber baron” combines the sense of criminal (“robber”) and illegitimate aristrocray (“baron”). Wikipedia. What is new with these tech robber barons is the ability of the technologies they've co-opted to corrupt whole governments and countries, to seize personal data, and to institute an unregulated monetary system.

Must history repeat itself?

Are we destined to wait until the raping and pillaging damage is all over before we act to stop it? The U.S. Supreme Court and the federal court system evidently do not care about intellectual property and patents. That can now be said with certainty. They supported a Leader v. Facebook decision that had no basis in evidence or law.

The Soviet Union failed. However, a Soviet asymmetric warfare tactic called "lawfare" is being used by Facebook and its Moscow allies against the U.S. federal courts and financial systems. The U.S. Supreme Court just fell victim to lawfare in Leader v. Facebook, we believe.

They don't care, but do you? If so, what are you (and we) going to do about it?

The robber barons have convinced a billion people on the planet to become addicted to their formulation of the “social networking” drug. How do we help these addicts and wrestle control of this technology from the criminals?

The robber barons probably think “the masses” will soon come to accept their thefts as “the new normal.”* Let’s prove that assumption fatal.

* * *

Footnote:

* The "new normal" proposition is a favorite tool of stock manipulators to try and convince the mass market that their value proposition should replace the previously accepted one. For example, the public was asked to accept the "dotcom" bubble as "the new normal" for tech valuations. History tells us this proposition was a devious smoke screen to enable crooked telecom and Silicon Valley CEOs to cash in their options before the valuation bubble burst. Some of those executives are in jail today, like Bernie Ebbers (MCI) and Joe Nacchio (Qwest). Others have gotten away with their crimes, including some of the "venture capitalists" dictating Facebook's conduct. This "pump-and-dump" strategy is being repeated by the Facebook cronies, both in the USA and the former Soviet Union where Facebook appears to be moving much of its core "Facebook Credits" R&D.

LEADER V. FACEBOOK [JUSTICE] DENIED

U.S. Supreme Court passes on hearing Leader v. Facebook

---

Contributing Writers | AMERICANS FOR INNOVATION | Jan. 7, 2012

(Jan. 7, 2013)—The U.S. Supreme Court issued its Jan. 4 conference orders this morning. Leader Technologies’ petition was denied, along with 462 others. The Court gave no reason. Neither did even a single justice disclose holdings in Facebook. At least in some cases the Court commented that certain Justices “took no part” in that decision. Leader’s denial is on page 6 (click here).

Does any reasonable person think that no Justice or family member is invested in Facebook? The Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires judges to disqualify themselves from participating in a decision where their impartiality can be questioned by such holdings. Strike three for judicial ethics.

Facebook did not return our calls by press time.

"It's a sad day for American justice and property rights"

Leader’s Chairman Michael McKibben said “It's a sad day for American justice and property rights. We are disappointed, of course. We hoped for justice, but what we received was more of the same, justice denied. If Facebook thinks this is over, they think wrong. We're just getting warmed up.” Asked what Leader would do next, all Mr. McKibben would say is that we'd know when it happens.

Mr. McKibben did say “Facebook stole our technology on 11 of 11 counts. We proved that and this won’t change. The technology running Facebook is Leader’s invention. Zuckerberg also withheld massive amounts of evidence during the case [AFI: Evidence that could prove outright theft of Leader's source code.]. This too has now been proven from their expert's own testimony in other cases. The district court heard with its own ears after the trial that the jury made their decision without evidence. Our investors have been cheated and their property stolen.” He continued, “I am very sad as an American citizen as well. Facebook failed their legal case, so they relied upon judicial corruption to get what they wanted. An ill-wind blows.”

We were also able to speak with Leader’s Chief Operating Officer Jim Sobwick who was asked for his reaction. Mr. Sobwick said “I looked for a silver lining in the Court’s actions and found two. The Court disbarred two attorneys.” One of Mr. Sobwick’s former companies was instrumental in developing and popularizing the pre-paid calling card industry.

Evident Judicial Corruption

This decision, or rather lack of a decision, will now likely escalate from smoldering embers to a raging inferno. The evident judicial misconduct started at the district court when Judge Leonard P. Stark’s allowed the new on-sale bar flip-flop claim after discovery closed; blocking Leader from mounting a defense. Then, the corruption matriculated to Federal Circuit Judges Alan D. Lourie, Kimberly A. Moore, Evan J. Wallach, Randall R. Rader and Clerk Jan Horbaly who brazenly ignored their own (and the Supreme Court’s) precedents for evaluating the district court’s mistakes/misconduct. This does not even count the undisclosed stock holdings in Facebook by the judges and their families.

Next Step: Impeachment

AFI has learned of a citizens’ plan to move for impeachment of these federal judges for dereliction of duty. We pay our judges to judge rightly. When they don’t, the only discipline available to the citizenry is impeachment.

Almost 50% of Washington is attorneys

Last week we published a proposal that could change America. The proposal highlighted the fact that 50% of the power positions in Washington were held by one profession - attorneys. The article stated the obvious: That any organization with such predominance of one profession would be dysfunctional. Click here for that article.

Psychopathic conduct in Washington

MediaBistro’s Vicki Salemi has just published a piece revealing that the legal profession is second most likely to attract psychopaths, followed next by media, then salespeople. She cites a Kevin Dutton piece saying that there are more professional psychopaths than disturbed criminals. The personality attributes are superficial charm, egocentricity, persuasiveness, lack of empathy, independence and focus. Click here to read Vicki’s article.

Sound familiar? Leader Technologies’ shareholders, inventors and the whole inventor community is suffering right now from “superficial charm” passing itself off as Lady Justice.

---

MEDIA ALERT: President Obama may propose Facebook's COO Sheryl Sandberg as a contender for either Secretary of Commerce (thus head of the U.S. Patent Office !!!) or a new cabinet post called "Secretary of Business." Besides the fact that such a post would have carte blanche to make up new rules and procedures without oversight or accountability, it is inconceivable that Sandberg does not know that Mark Zuckerberg stole Leader Technologies' patent, and therefore, would continue to make disingenuous claims about supporting American business and innovation. Many observers now consider former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and his protégé Sheryl Sandberg, to be the "Boy King's" handlers, along with their Moscow compadres.

Sandberg is also a 20-year protégé of former bail out chief Lawrence Summers. Summers appears to have been instrumental in arranging for Facebook's largest outside shareholder, Russian Juri Milner (another of his protégés from World Bank days), to receive Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley bailout funds that may have been routed through Dubai to invest in Facebook's pre-IPO. This move may have provided the funds Milner's DST aka Digital Sky needed to become the second largest pre-IPO shareholder in Facebook . . . not counting the holdings of Leader v. Facebook federal judges (sorry, couldn't resist). Goldman Sachs was a pre-IPO shareholder in DST Moscow, and we believe still is.

Nasty stuff if true.

---

More to come. Stay tuned.

* * *