Lawyer-Judge Coup d'état

How the Facebook Cabal plots to take any property they covet


OPINION: By Contributing Writers, Americans For Innovation (AFI), Jul. 24, 2013

Founder John Adams warned of a societal condition when anarchy and tyranny would commence. We are there.

In 1878, Adams wrote “The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet,’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal,’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

Ironically, the proof is staring us in the Face-book.

Adams identified three criteria signaling anarchy and tyranny:

  1. Property is not as sacred as the laws of God;
  2. No force of law and public justice to protect it (property); and
  3. Thou shalt not covet and steal are not inviolable precepts.

Line in the Sand: Leader v. Facebook

A seminal patent infringement case came before the federal courts in 2008 that proves America is in a state of anarchy and tyranny regarding personal property—Leader v. Facebook.

Leader v. Facebook is a patent infringement case.  Patents and copyrights are protected property. Those rights are actually written into the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” The bottom line is that an inventor’s patent is just as much his or her private property as your possessions, house and land. However, this case has uncovered a nefarious agenda to strip Americans of these most fundamental rights and hand them to a privileged class of lawyers, judges and their paymasters.

Innovator Leader Technologies invented a technology we now call “social networking” starting in the late 1990’s. By the time they filed for their first patents in 2002, they had invested 145,000 man-hours and over $10 million. Literally within three months of Leader perfecting the lynch-pin of their invention, Mark Zuckerberg and his PayPal Mafia handlers were on the market, on February 4, 2004. Zuckerberg claims to have done all the work himself in “one to two weeks” while chasing girls and studying for finals.

New evidence says he received Leader's source code from a mole who was cooperating with Zuckerberg's puppetmaster, James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP, Palo Alto, CA, and attorney firm Fenwick & West LLP, who was also Leader's attorney at the same time. This cabal was laying in wait for Leader to finish debugging its invention so that they could get started with their fabricated Harvard-boy-genius-Facebook-origins myth. Lawrence Summers was President of Harvard then, and Breyer was a big alumni contributor.

Adams criteria (3)—Thou shalt not covet. Thou shalt not steal. Facebook and their handlers coveted and stole Leader’s property.

Forty-four months after filing for their patents, Leader received their first patent on November 21, 2006—U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761. On November 19, 2008 Leader filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook. Leader Technologies, Inc., v. Facebook, Inc., 08-cv-862-JJF-LPS (D.Del. 2008).

On July 27, 2010 Facebook was convicted on 11 of 11 counts of using Leader’s invention without permission. In short, this means the engine running Facebook is Leader’s property. Facebook also failed to prove its pre-trial assertion that Leader had copied pre-existing inventions. But then, with no evidence other than Facebook attorney-theater, the district court Judge Leonard P. Stark gave the decision to Facebook anyway, on a bizarre allegation called on-sale bar. Leader post-trial appeals to the rule of law and precedent fell on deaf ears. The court did not apply a single well-settled test.

All patent trials go to one appeals court called the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. That court was set up by Congress in 1982 to specialize in patents. In summary, the Federal Circuit went through the motions of impartiality. Leader’s attorneys argued strongly for the rule of law and precedent, again. Facebook’s attorneys, on the other hand, stumbled through nonsensical arguments. Yet, the court refused to overturn the unfounded on-sale bar ruling. The court even timed two of its decisions to meet Facebook’s pre-IPO public relations needs, signaling evident collusion.

Leader appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case.  

Adams criteria (2)—No force of law and public justice to protect it (property). The courts failed to protect Leader’s property.

In addition to the courts’ systematic failures to apply well-settled law, consider these new facts, uncovered by investigators recently:

  1. All the judges assigned to Leader v. Facebook, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., held Facebook stock. Judges are instructed to withdraw from cases where they have even “one share” in order to avoid impropriety, the appearance of impropriety, and judge bias.

  2. Facebook went public during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings. This generated over $6 billion in winnings for the Facebook Cabal insiders who cashed out before the stock crashed.

  3. The Federal Circuit failed to disclose that Facebook attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, was the Court’s own attorney in a previous matter.

  4. Chief Justice Roberts failed to disclose that Facebook’s attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, Gibson Dunn LLP, is his long-time protégé.

  5. The Federal Circuit Clerk of Court, Jan Horbaly, failed to disclose that he collaborates closely with Facebook’s lawyers and law firms, and has done for many years.

  6. Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall R. Rader failed to disclose that Leader's director and potential expert witness, Professor James P. Chandler, was his former law professor at George Washington University. Rader also failed to disclose that he butted heads with Chandler many times over the Federal Trade Secrets Act and the Ecoonomic Espionage Act of 1996 when Rader was chief counsel to committee chairman Senator Orrin Hatch. Chandler advised Leader throughout the pre-patent invention phase, then filed the Leader patents that the Federal Circuit is now attacking.

  7. Federal Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore failed to disclose that Weil Gotshal LLP, who made an appearance in the case defending Facebook and the Federal Circuit judges, was her former client and is Microsoft’s attorney, one of Facebook’s largest stockholders.

  8. Two of the judges in Leader v. Facebook received their Obama appointments during the proceedings. Quid pro quo for protecting Obama’s 47 million “likes” on Facebook? Leonard P. Stark’s appointment as a federal judge occurred one week after the trial (he heard the case as a magistrate). Stark had allowed Facebook to add the on-sale bar claim one month before trial, then blocked Leader from conducting additional discovery to prepare defenses. Suspiciously, longtime Judge Joseph Farnan retired from the bench just a month before the Leader v. Facebook trial, after saying many times that he was looking forward to the trial.

  9. Facebook's attorney Cooley Godward LLP, specifically Donald K. Stern, was advising Obama on judge appointments. No one at the Justice Department or White House disclosed this conflict.

  10. Another Obama political appointee, David Kappos, then Director of the U.S. Patent Office, ordered an unprecedented 3rd reexamination of Leader’s patent, despite Facebook having failed the arguments three times previously. The Patent Office is attempting to invalidate all 35 patent claims of a 10-year old patent, not just the 11 that Leader sued Facebook on. Obama and his Facebook Cabal clearly want Leader’s patent to be wiped from the record.

  11. Twenty-eight Zuckerberg hard drives and Harvard emails of evidence suddenly appeared out of nowhere in 2012 in another case against Facebook (Paul Ceglia v. Mark Zuckerberg). Facebook told the court in 2009 that those items were “lost.” Given the discovery of material new evidence in the case, justice dictated immediate remand of the matter to the district court. New testimony says those hard drives will prove that Zuckerberg stole Leader’s actual source code via Leader’s former attorney (and current attorney) Fenwick & West LLP. This new evidence was ignored by the Federal Circuit.

  12. Federal Circuit Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly was caught by AFI investigators denying Leader v. Facebook motions within hours of their arrival, so said one of his staffers, Valerie White, before she was muzzled the next day, never to be seen or heard from again, even though she promised to investigate and respond back. She said there would be no way the judges could have all seen, considered and denied a motion in a few hours.

  13. Fenwick & West LLP failed to disclose its knowledge of Leader’s earlier patents to the Patent Office in Zuckerberg’s patent filings. This is fraud ("inequitable conduct" in legalese). Despite this notoriously public information, the Patent Office issues new patents to Facebook at a feverish pace.

  14. David Kappos, the Patent Office Director, worked for IBM, who sold 750 patents to Facebook during the proceedings. Kappos is a political appointee, not unlike the chief counsel to the IRS, William Wilkins. Kappos retired just a few months ago, after the exposure of his conduct in this politically-motivated reexamination.

  15. Patent Office Judge Stephen C. Siu, who is overseeing Kappos’s third reexam order, worked at IBM and Microsoft. Microsoft is one of Facebook’s largest shareholders. Siu has not disclosed this conflict of interests.

  16. The Patent Office claimed “executive communication privilege” when asked to provide information to a third party requester regarding internal communications about this reexamination. The contents were blacked out. This means the Obama Executive Branch is interfering in Leader’s patent property rights. The Patent Office’s deputy counsel, Kathryn Siehndel, who made the executive privilege claim, failed to disclose that she used to work for Facebook’s attorney, White & Case LLP.

  17. Current Federal Reserve Chairman candidate Lawrence “Larry” Summers has mentored Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg since the early 1990’s. He also mentored Russian Yuri Milner, who has close ties to Russian oligarch Alisher Asmanov and the Kremlin. Summers was one of the Harvard-wunderkind architects of the disasterous Russian voucher system in the early 1990's while Chief Economist for the World Bank. Milner is Facebook’s second largest shareholder and is partnered with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. With Goldman’s and Morgan’s help, Milner moved billions of dollars into Facebook pre-IPO stock.

    This occurred after the US taxpayers bailed out Goldman and Morgan Stanley in 2008. To this day no one knows the origins of those funds, which pumped Facebook’s valuation to $100 billion. Milner is also connected with Bank Menatep, which was caught laundering $10 billion in Russian mob funds and diverting $4 billion in IMF funds. Summers’ conduct here has never been scrutinized, even though he was appointed to oversee the bailout soon after Obama was elected President. These people are the paymasters in this cabal. See Congressional Briefings.

Nominal Defense of the U.S. Constitution by the Courts

There are many more items of misconduct in the list, but I think you get the point. This defense of the U.S. Constitution by the federal courts not only smells, it is rotten.

Adams criteria (3)—Thou shalt not covet and steal are inviolable precepts. The federal courts are protecting the thief, not the property holder.

The Leader v. Facebook proof is all public information, admissible in court. Nothing I have discussed is speculation.

The coup de grâce for us came when we stumbled across an earlier Federal Circuit decision Zoltek Corp. v. US, 442 F. 3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2006) where the Federal Circuit judges (these same judges) ruled that patents were not private property. See Boston University Professor Adam Mossoff's critique of this ruling.

This decision proves that these judges and lawyers are conspiring to topple 200 years of American property law and precedent. Since 1982 when Congress created this court, the Federal Circuit is the only appeals court for patents. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is exactly the conditions we see here.

With their custom-designed new precedent in place, these judges and attorneys will then cite the new law and ignore 200 years of precedent. Then, they will use their new precedent to lay claim on any personal property they covet. This is judicial activism on steroids. Adams criteria (1)—Property is not as sacred as the laws of God. The federal courts are protecting the thief, not the property holder.

Lawyer coup d'état –A privileged class of judges, lawyers and their paymasters

This conduct amounts to a coup d'état. Coup d'états often occur where the one seeking power uses the existing laws to take over. The conduct of the judicial and executive branches in Leader v. Facebook reveals that the people comprising the Facebook cabal, including the Patent Office, have been working since the early 1990’s to strip Congress of the People’s authority over their own privacy and property. This agenda will create a privileged class of judges, attorneys, regulators and their paymasters who set their own precedent and are not accountable to Congress—the People.

A line in the sand

The idea of a privileged class was expressly repudiated in the U.S. Constitution. Adams wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution, the model for the U.S. Constitution:

“No man . . . [shall] have any other title to obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from those of the community.” (Article VI)

“All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times accountable to them.” (Article V)

We must draw a line in the sand. The longer that we allow ill-conceived legal precedents to be blessed by corrupt judges, the more difficult it will be to stop them.

Adams criteria—(1) Property not sacred, (2) No protection and (3) Covet and steal the property of others = Anarchy and Tyranny.

Leader v. Facebook proves that tyranny and anarchy are here, now. Will we draw a line in the sand, or stick our heads in it?

* * *

About AFI

Americans For Innovation (AFI) emerged as a grassroots effort after the Leader v. Facebook district court trial when judicial misconduct was suspected. AFI investigators uncovered and exposed the extensive Facebook holdings by the judges, as well as their deep relationships to the Facebook paymasters, the Patent Office and the Obama White House, which relies on Barack and Michelle Obama’s 47 million Facebook “likes” to sway public opinion and bypass Congress. All AFI writings are opinion. Readers are encouraged to think for themselves, and not rely on the information without independent verification.