January 13, 2014 -- We wish you a Happy New Year and hope this year will be a prosperous one for you and yours. While we would like nothing better than to be completely focused on growing business, circumstances force at least some of us to attend to the shocking judicial corruption scandal plaguing not only us, but our nation. Now we need your help to take action.
Leader fights this fight not only for its shareholders, but for every American who holds private property of any kind. Most Americans don't know that patents and copyrights are the only property rights specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, 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."
Despite this constitutional mandate, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington D.C., and a handful of Washington law firms who represent deep-pocket intellectual property thieves, are attempting to redefine patents not as private property overseen by Congress, but as a privilege bestowed by judges. In other words, if they have their way, you will only own your house if a judge decides you own it. Even if you have a certified deed, you won't own your property unless a judge affirms it. In essence, the Federal Circuit is attempting to usurp the authority of The People to govern themselves and protect private property from government confiscation. It would give the Federal Circuit privileges above the Constitution. This is the current reality in the Leader v. Facebook case.
Did we mention that Microsoft, Wall Street, Silicon Valley and other big infringers are crawling all over the Federal Circuit, Supreme Court and the White House? They're even paying special member dues to participate in exclusive bar association committees and events. They pass stock tips liberally. These stock tips in crony-managed "dark pool" investment funds appear to be the bribe du jour in Washington. These crony funds buy the stock for the judges. Then, even though the judge knows these stocks are held by the fund, he won't disclose them, citing the generic mutual fund "safe harbor" rule. But this does not apply to investments held by judges including:
The rules say the holding of "even one share" by a spouse dictates recusal. If the judge gets caught, he'll just claim incompetence, ignorance, inadvertence, mismanagement, mistake, oversight, stupidity, brain aneurysm... anything but the truth.
When complaints about the Federal Circuit were filed with the DC Bar Association in Leader v. Facebook, the lawyers there replied: "we decline to investigate a sitting federal judge." This response confirms that federal judges are indeed, above the law. There is even a Supreme Court decision, Stump v. Sparkman, that says judges are immune from prosecution for their actions, no matter how incompetent, negligent, malicious such conduct might be, even if the conduct violates the law.
Wall Street seems all too willing to oblige this judicial license to steal, and to pay the fines if they get caught. But of course, these fines merely fuel this agenda. Life is good in this bubble. This situation is being covered by the media on Yahoo Finance and Greta Van Susteren.
Two Federal Circuit decisions moved the ball toward their goal: (1) Zoltek Corp. v. US (2006) and (2) Leader v. Facebook (2012). In both cases the judges simply ignored well-settled precedent despite the evidence. In Leader v. Facebook, the compliance of Chief Justice John Roberts meant that Leader's appeal would fall on deaf ears. Subsequently, Leader discovered that Justice Roberts himself holds investments in the same Facebook "dark pool" funds as every judge in the Leader v. Facebook Federal Circuit panel, as well as the Delaware District Court judge. Here's a new analysis of Chief Justice John G. Roberts' holdings and Presiding Judge Alan D. Lourie's holdings. As you can see, the overwhelming evidence shows that they had a duty to recuse themselves.
Boston University Law Professor Adam Mosoff wrote about the troubling Zoltek decision.
The "win" for Facebook in Leader v. Facebook was clearly rigged. Sadly, visions of kangaroo court show trials in third world countries come to mind. The court rigging appears to have begun in earnest just a few weeks after Leader's attorneys kicked Facebook's butt in the Markman Hearing. When Leader ultimately petitioned the Supreme Court for redress, Chief Justice Roberts, in addition to remaining silent about his secret Facebook investments, also failed to disclose that he personally mentors Facebook's appeals attorney, Thomas G. Hungar, and Facebook's Gibson Dunn LLP law firm. Such conflicts of interest may not be surprising in a banana republic, but cannot be tolerated in America.
To make matters worse, Hungar's Gibson Dunn LLP law firm concealed 28 Mark Zuckerberg hard drives and Harvard emails from Leader Technologies before trial. They told Leader's lawyers they were lost. When the existence of the drives became known, and the Federal Circuit was notified, they completely ignored this dramatic new evidence. Let's hope the House Oversight Committee, or the In re Facebook class action securities fraud suits against Facebook, dig out the truth on those drives. When Paul Ceglia's lawyer's got close in 2012, Eric H. Holder, a substanital Facebook "dark pools" holder himself, filed a criminal case against Ceglia through U.S. Attorney Preetiner "Preet" Bharara. Pundits believe proof of Zuckerberg's theft of Leader Technologies' source code in 2003 is on those drives. Interestingly, Bharara is the very same U.S. Attorney currently pretending to sanction JPMorgan for the 2008 mortgage debacle. Curiously, Bharara formerly worked for Gibson Dunn LLP. JPMorgan was one of Facebook's IPO underwriters. Let's get this straight, Bharara is currently levying sanctions against JPMorgan who floated the Facebook "dark pools" stock that both Holder and JPMorgan made money on. Out of one pocket and into another. If President Obama is not directing this activity, then his lieutenants certainly are.
The facts don’t lie. Every judicial official and regulator who touched Leader v. Facebook had an investment in a Facebook “dark pool” fund during the patent infringement lawsuit proceedings. Worse, Facebook's appeals lawyers, Gibson Dunn LLP, were legal counsel to all the Federal Circuit judges in a 2010 matter involving the Federal Circuit Bar Association, yet did not disclose this obvious Facebook bias to Leader. The breaches of the Code of Conduct in Leader v. Facebook are piled high in these courts.
Judge impartiality is a democratic foundation stone. Citizens rely on just judges and equal treatment before the law. Leader relied on impartiality, but was served platters of corruption instead.
Judicial conflicts of interest have been historically condemned. The Babylonian Hammurabi Code required the removal of unjust judges. The Bible says in Deuteronomy 16:8 “they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” Byzantium's 6th century Justinian’s Code permitted litigants to dismiss a suspect judge. On paper, this revered principle applies in America too. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges states in Canon 1: "An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society." Likewise, the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch states in its first clause §2635.101: "Public service is a public trust. Each employee has a responsibility to the United States Government and its citizens to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws and ethical principles above private gain" (emphasis added).
These sage requirements are being ignored. Instead, our government officials on both sides of the aisle are padding their retirement accounts. Just today, CNN Money published the results of a report by the Center for Responsive Politics titled "Majority of Congress members now millionaires." The headline says it all. How is it that a long time sitting judge like the Federal Circuit's Alan D. Lourie is such a genius at investing that he is now worth up to $14.4 million? Are we expected to believe that this judge in Leader v. Facebook can incompetently ignore application of a law he wrote, namely the on-sale bar tests in Group One v. Hallmark Cards, while competently making million from his personal investments. .
In Leader v. Facebook, the only part of the proceeding that these unscrupulous insiders could not manipulate was the jury, which ruled Facebook guilty of infringing Leader's U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761—on 11 of 11 counts. After that, each judge kicked the can down the road right up to the Supreme Court steps. In the end, these judges had to fabricate evidence to prevent a Facebook defeat. All these judges had substantial investments in Facebook “dark pools” and undisclosed personal relationships with Facebook’s attorneys—who were also partying in every room of the Obama White House. All the while, Facebook navigators were spread out across Capitol Hill teaching unsuspecting members of Congress how to sign up for the Great Infringer.
The circumstances are clear now. Facebook’s handlers promised many, many, many people associated with the 2008 and 2012 elections of Barack Obama a big Facebook IPO payday in exchange for their political and financial support. They promised votes, favorable regulations, bailouts and energy stimuli too. Evidently these promises were so enticing that numerous White House political appointees bought into these funds. For example, S.E.C. Chair Mary L. Shapiro bought 51 of them, notably 27 T.Rowe Price funds she valued at up to $2.63 million. T.Rowe held 5.2% of Facebook's stock at the IPO. Commerce Secretary Penny S. Pritzker holds 30 Facebook "dark pool" funds she valued at up to $23.4 million. Attorney General Eric H. Holder holds 25 funds, including six T.Rowe Price funds. The list goes on.
Facebook (actually Leader’s inventions) delivered the LOFO (low information) vote in 2008 and 2012 via 50 million “likes,” many of which were automatic sign ups. Pundits say that both elections turned on these votes. By the time Leader filed the patent infringement case on Nov. 19, 2008, the Facebook IPO train had already left the station. Besides that, these people relied on the billions of dollars in advertising revenue from the invention to fuel their many deals—Instagram, Square, Zynga, Bitcoin, PayPal, etc. Clearly, Leader’s invention was central to all their grand plans.
Leader v. Facebook has uncovered corruption on a grand scale. Founder Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said to a group of citizens asking what sort of government the Constitutional Convention delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."
Thankfully, the latest Americans For Innovation blog makes some practical recommendations about what you can do. While we would like our government officials to conduct themselves rightly, they are not. Therefore, we as the citizenry must step forward and fix our broken system. During that fix, the confiscation of Leader Technologies' private property by our government must be remedied.
Thank you for your support and advocacy.
The Leader Team
For a related article, see: http://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2014/01/wall-street-manipulation-of-judges.html
Notice: This message may contain opinion. No opinion should be relied upon without independent verification. Think for yourself.
|(Images and text are merged to enable cut and paste)|
Leader Technologies, Inc.
737 Enterprise Drive, Suite A
Lewis Center (Columbus), Ohio 43035
(614) 890-1986 office
(614) 864-7922 fax
http://www.leader.com company website
http://www.leaderphone.com audio conferencing