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:
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:
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.
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.
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?
* * *
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.