Corruption at the Federal Circuit? You decide.
BY DONNA KLINE | July 27, 2012 | PITTSBURGH BUSINESS REPORT (PBR)
Federal Circuit Judge Acquires Facebook Stock During The Leader v. Facebook Case; Then Rules FOR Facebook
Update: Aug. 7, 2012
Judge Alan D. Lourie Chose Retirement Fund Value Over Justice?
Breaking News! Clerk of Court staff member Valeri White told an OPERATION SPOTLIGHT activist today that Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s motions are not being logged as having ever been received by the court! We’re digging in to this story now. A Comment has been posted below with information on how to telephone the Clerk’s office to make your own inquiry. Keep good records of your contacts with the Clerk’s office. Here’s a separate page with Steve’s comment so you can send it to others separately [http://www.donnaklinenow.com/steve-williams-conversation-with-valeri-white].
Word has it that Judge Lourie plans to retire soon. Did he let that color his decisions in Leader v. Facebook? More digging into the Financial Disclosure Reports of the Federal Circuit judges reveals that Presiding Judge Alan D. Lourie’s holdings in T. Rowe Price and Vanguard Funds should have been disclosed. Judge Lourie’s Form AO10 Financial Disclosure dated “04/09/2011” shows holdings in five (5) T. Rowe Price Funds and sixteen (16) Vanguard Funds. The Vangaurd Fund purchases of Facebook have been verified, but will not be publicly available until late August according to Vanguard sources (stay tuned). However, the Vanguard officials did confirm that Facebook purchases by their index funds would have been a certainty based upon the opening valuation. Judge Lourie’s T. Rowe Price disclosed holdings are:
- T. Rowe Price Cap Appreciation Fund (IRA)
- T. Rowe Price Short Term Bond Fund (IRA)
- TR Price High Yield Fd (IRA)
- TR Price New Horizon Fd (IRA)
- TR Price DNMA Fund
T. Rowe’s investment stake in Facebook prior to the IPO was large enough (5.2%) to warrant Facebook having to disclose it in their S-1. Here’s the S-1 disclosure verbatim on page 129:
“(20) Consists of (i) 6,033,630 shares of Class A common stock held of record by 81 funds and accounts advised or sub-advised by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc.; and (ii) 12,158,743 shares of Class B common stock held of record by 77 funds and accounts advised or sub-advised by T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. serves as investment adviser with power to direct investments and/or sole power to vote the securities owned by these funds and accounts. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. may be deemed to be the beneficial owner of all the shares listed. T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. is the wholly owned subsidiary of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc., which is a publicly traded financial services holding company. The address for T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. is 100 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, MD 21202.”
In plain English, this disclosure says that a total of 158 T. Rowe Price funds are all managed by the parent company of T. Rowe Price and the company stands to win big with its holdings of a total of 18,192,373 Class A and B shares.
Also in plain English, because T. Rowe Price holdings figured so prominently in the pre-IPO Facebook hype, Judge Lourie had an ethical duty to disclose his conflict of interest to the Court. The conflict, of course, being that a decision levied against Facebook might hinder the company’s financial position. If the value of Facebook’s stock dropped as a result, the funds Judge Lourie holds would lose value. Instead of disclosing this conflict of interest, the Judge was silent on both the conflict and the matters of law that Leader was appealing.
More questionable than that, the “decision” ruled on matters that the three judges cooked up themselves; that Leader had not even appealed or argued. Remarkably, the judges then ruled against their own cooked-up argument. (Leader argued that Facebook failed the clear and convincing evidence standard. The judges ignored Leader’s briefs and argument, and replaced them with a substantial evidence argument. Then they picked at the cold trial record for bits and pieces of trial evidence that they thought best fit their new argument for which they had not been briefed; even digging up evidence that was never contested at trial. Judicial activism at its finest?)
Here’s a sampling of the pre-IPO hype discussing T. Rowe Price’s holdings:
- Hibah Yousuf. “Facebook: Many mutual funds already have a stake.” CNN Money, May 18, 2012. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012.
- Ryan Sharrow. “Facebook IPO: T. Rowe Price shares worth up to $637M.” Baltimore Business Journal. May 9, 2012. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012.
- Mike Smith. “Want to buy Facebook shares before IPO?” Facebook IPO News, Feb. 6, 2012. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012.(“Fidelity Contrafund [Judge Kimberly A. Moore's funds]… T. Rowe Price was actually named in Facebook’s IPO filing”).
- T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. “Principal And Selling Stockholders, fn. 20,” Facebook S-1 Filing, p. 129. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012.
These are more reasons why the Federal Circuit is legally bound to rehear this case. The conflicts of interest in this Court are legion. (See also Dr. A’s Renewed Motion below for a full disclosure of Judge Kimberly A. Moore’s holdings in Facebook, Zynga and Groupon. Judge Moore’s Financial Disclosure was submitted on May 12, 2011 and disclosed investments in Fidelity Contra. Within a few week Fidelity Contra’s holdings in Facebook were widely published, as Dr. A.’s Exhibit E shows (Fig. 1)—June 1, 2012, Bloomberg; June 2, 2011, Silicon Valley Business Journal).
Corruption at the Federal Circuit? You decide. (continued—Original Post)
Updated: Mon. Aug. 1, 2012 Direct file download links added (by request since some of you don’t want to create a Scribd user account) just under each document displayed. | Dear Readers: This post is a continuation of the last one, but it was getting too crowded. So, if you want more backstory on this post, you’ll need to read “Industry Leader Blasts Facebook’s Predatory Conduct – Former Director of Network Architecture for Sun Microsystems files a Court Brief supporting Leader Technologies in Leader v. Facebook.”
- Clerk refuses to docket pleadings (pleadings were not made available to read online, as is customary)
- Court decisions timed to media events favoring Facebook
- At least one judge owns Facebook stock without disclosing it
- Judge holds stock in close Facebook allies such as Zynga and Groupon
- Courts support Russian oligarchs (2nd largest Facebook shareholder) over American inventors
- Judges fail to disclose associations with a Leader witness, Professor James P. Chandler, who champions inventor rights
- Inappropriate non-disclosure of ties between Facebook attorneys, Clerk of Court and Chief Judge
- Court tries to marginalize Dr. A with same day decision turnarounds
- Court ignores new evidence that Facebook withheld 2003-2004 source code evidence
- The Court affirms that “clear and convincing evidence” can be based on a gutted document and misguided jury instructions
- The Court refuses to simply acknowledge that “is” is present tense
- The Court preserves a manifest injustice in favor of Facebook
The Federal Circuit is trying to ignore Dr. Arunachalam, but she refuses to be ignored. Today she filed and published a renewed motion (scroll down to the bottom of this article) asking the Court to correct the error of its ways. She methodically lays out the case for the Court’s errors. Dr. Arunachalam is an inventor and the former Director of Network Architecture for Sun Microsystems. On July 10, 2011 she filed an Amicus Curiae Brief (“friend of the court” brief) which the Court is trying to ignore by refusing to add it to the public library of documents filed with the Court—although they have filed their denial of it. [Click here to read Dr. Arunachalam's Amicus Brief.] (This brief is contained in Dr. Arunachalam’s Renewed Motion below as Exhibit F.)
Now we learn that the judges themselves have undisclosed conflicts of interest including cozy relationships with Facebook attorneys and investments in Facebook and its close partners.
Leader’s chairman and inventor Michael McKibben is thrilled by Dr. Arunachalam’s attention to Leader’s cause. He said “Dr. A is a pioneer in internet technology. Her inventions and work at Sun Microsystems are almost legend. To have her championing our cause is gratifying and humbling.” He continued, “Dr. A. like us is appalled at the almost arrogant inattention of the courts to the property rights of inventors.”
|
|
Tech Editor Shibani Joshi of Fox Business interviewed Leader Technologies Chairman & Founder Michael McKibben about Leader v. Facebook on July 17, 2012. Click here to watch the Fox Business video. |
I have continued to try and reach out to Shabani Joshi at Fox Business to learn more about how Fox Business knew before Leader about the denial of Leader’s petition, but all they have said is that they cannot reveal their “newsgathering sources.” Absent more information from a source willing to speak to us, it seems pretty certain that Facebook informed Fox Business and the information was timed to try and embarrass McKibben on-air. However, as McKibben said, “the attempt at sandbagging me backfired because it merely illustrated in living color what we have been saying for a while—that the courts in this case are acting outside the law.”
In her renewed motion (below), Dr. A. spells out the law that directs judges to disqualify themselves if they have conflicts of interest, but no judge uttered a word. Instead, they ruled to preserve the past-tense interpretation of Interrogatory No. 9, the item of evidence upon which this case turns. However, the un-ruling flies in the face of The Dictionary Act, which says the present tense cannot be applied to the past. Therefore, the law clearly says that the Court is wrong, yet they stubbornly refuse to stand up for what is right.
Dr. A. told us “Michael McKibben is a real inventor. He envisioned his innovations over a decade ago. That’s what an inventor does.” She continued, “Mark Zuckerberg and his cronies had to steal ideas from a visionary from Columbus, Ohio instead of creating new things themselves. It’s an embarrassing story for a long-time Silicon Valley resident like me.”
What do citizens do when the justice system protects the criminal? That appears to be the case in Leader v. Facebook. The rightful inventor, his company, and his company’s shareholders of U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 are being deprived of their reward by criminals who have greased the skids of a justice system that appears to be much more corrupt than we ever thought.
OPERATION SPOTLIGHT continues.
Here is a new FAIR Media Contact List for your OPERATION SPOTLIGHT activity (networks, cable television, national radio programs, national newspapers, magazines, newsservices and wires). It’s a very good list. Here’s the previously compiled OPERATION SPOTLIGHT CONTACT LIST.
Here’s one sample OPERATION SPOTLIGHT Letter.
See a NEW OPERATION SPOTLIGHT LETTER being proposed to be sent to President Obama, Mitt Romney, Ohio Senate candidates in Leader Technologies’ district, and key media regarding Leader v. Facebook and American property rights.
Here is Dr. Arunachalam’s motion sent today via U.S. Express Mail. You can track the delivery yourself (EI 081 023 653 US) online at USPS Track & Confirm.
Here is Dr. A’s Motion For Reconsideration that was just denied on July 24, 2012 . . . in record time. Who can believe the judges are even reading these motions? It would appear that Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly rules the roost.
|
Click bottom right corner box to ENLARGE / REDUCE document view Fig. 1 – Renewed Motion of Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D. For Leave To File Brief Of Amicus Curiae In Support Of Leader Technologies’ Petition For Rehearing And Rehearing En Banc sent to the Federal Circuit on July 27, 2012. Now also available from doctoc and direct PDF download at Leader.com. |
Let's ask both candidates to stand up for Leader Technologies, right now, not after the election.
President Obama & Mitt Romney both say they support small business
Let’s ask the candidates to put their rhetoric to work in a real live injustice against an American small business and inventor right now. Let’s ask them to use their current “bully pulpits” to right this wrong. If they cannot achieve anything for Leader right now while they have the spotlight, when would they be able to do it later? It is well known that once an administration is overrun with agendas, the ability to right wrongs grinds to a crawl. Now is the time to fix this Leader v. Facebook injustice, not after the election. In short, put them on the spot.
Here’s a suggested letter to send to President Obama, Mitt Romney and others. (Select “File | Download as” to save the file in a format you can edit on your computer. If you are not sure what format is right, just select “Microsoft Word 97/2003 (.doc)” which will probably open on your computer. If not, try “Rich Text Format (.rtf)” which opens on most word processors.
Update: Jul. 31, 2012, 11:28 AM EDT
Dr. A. Issues OPEN LETTER To Democratic & Republican Candidates
| To Democrats | To Republicans |
| Lakshmi Arunachalam Phd Open Letter to Democratic Candidates, 30 July 2012 | Lakshmi Arunachalam Phd Open Letter to Republican Candidates, 30 July 2012 |
|
Click bottom right corner box to ENLARGE / REDUCE document view Fig. 2 – Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s Open Letter to Democratic Party candidates requesting them to use their "bully pulpits" to speak out against the possible corruption being exposed in Leader v. Facebook. Click here for a direct PDF download. |
Click bottom right corner box to ENLARGE / REDUCE document view Fig. 3 – Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s Open Letter to Republican Party candidates requesting them to use their "bully pulpits" to speak out against the possible corruption being exposed in Leader v. Facebook. Click here for a direct PDF download. |
Official addresses and phone numbers for Members of the U.S. Congress
LETTER To Clerk Of Court Jan Horably
Dr. A asks Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly not to censor her (a) Amicus Curiae Brief and (b) Motion for Reconsideration and to make them available for public downloading from the docket, which is customary. Both are available here at http://www.scribd.com/amer4innov.
| Renewed Motion for Leave To File Amicus Curiae Lakshmi Arunachalam, Ph.D. Brief, Jul. 27, 2010 – Leader v. … |
|
Click bottom right corner box to ENLARGE / REDUCE document view Fig. 4 – Dr. Arunachalam’s July 27, 2012 letter to Clerk of Court Jan Horbably asking him not to censor her pleadings and to post them for public downloading from the court docket, which is customary. http://www.scribd.com/amer4innov. |
— Donna
Here is an updated House Committee on Small Business Contact List (where some web forms are updated and regular email addresses also included. In some cases, staffer emails are made available.
Here’s a verified Senate Committee on the Judiciary Contact List.
Here’s a verified House Committee on the Judiciary Contact List.
Here’s a list of American Bar Association Points of Contact.
Here’s a list of U.S. Chamber of Commerce Points of Contact.
{ 48 } Comments
Hi everyone. Idea. Go to Twitter. Search Facebook IPO. Lots of bad news about IPO finally!Tweet those that need informed more or are even remotely perplexed about IPO failure etc… We need to strike while the iron is hot folks. We need to fight this battle with every new angle that comes our way! Let the truth be known! For all Americans that are trying to make an honest living.
Have you ever noticed how corrupt courts never follow their own rules when they want to get away with something? Then, they hide behind enforcement of rules that they break at will whenever they want to block the truth-tellers from exposing their corruption? They cited page limit rules when Facebook isn’t even bothering to respond to Dr. A’s motions (therefore, no one is prejudiced, which is the principle behind these rules). These people are absolute cowards. I refuse to show respect to cowards. The Rules are rigged with so many obscure variants it gives a clerk a whole tool box to reject whatever he feels like rejecting, whenever he feels like rejecting it. The fact that they are hiding behind mechanical page limit rules instead of addressing the substantive mistakes of law proves to me that they are hiding from the truth. I just looked up their rule on motions and it is 20 pages. Dr. A’s two motions are 20 pages. These people can’t even come up with a good excuse for their protection of their precious Facebook. Who’s getting paid off? How much? What overseas account?
YES, EXACTLY! This court blatantly violates The Dictionary Act while hiding behind the page count of an unopposed motion. Their conduct is petty and embarrassing. I used to hold our federal judges in high regard. Not any more.
This LAW kills Interrogatory No. 9 dead in its tracks. It says that a present tense question asked in 2009 cannot be applied to circumstances in the past. Right before our eyes we are watching 13 judges and one kingpin “Executive” Clerk (accountable to no one apparently) REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE LAW. By their own WRITTEN OPINION Interrogatory No. 9 is all Facebook had left, so why is this court STUBBORNLY SUPPORTING A LIE???
Oh, yeh, they wouldn’t want to hurt their INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS and sudden balance increases in their OFFSHORE BANK ACCOUNTS now would they? That Zuck is one compelling leader, isn’t he? CHA CHING.
I wonder if the Supreme Court justices can be bought as easily as the Federal Circuit judges? We must stop this lawlessness in our courts. A democracy cannot survive without confidence in its justice system. Such confidence must be earned everyday by moral integrity. If the people running our courts now cannot be trusted, then throw the bums out.
I’m sure now
Mitt Romney is already wealthy and he won’t have to break any law’s or operate in gray area’s to enrich himself or any of his appointee’s; like we have now.
It’s a shame on the Leader vs Facebook law suit that almost every politician, and for sure the mainstream media, even Fox Business News management have self-serving interest investments in Facebook. Why else wouldn’t there be any coverage on this outrageous corruption case. Supreme Court? I’d bet most of them have IPO investments in FB also. Do you think they would rule any differently? Sad HA!
PRESIDENT OBAMA
Obama seems genuinely intrigued by Steve Jobs and Apple and facebook He repeatedly cites this company as an example of American innovation. but what steve did not tell you is that the ipad and the iphone and the app store was not his idea ;and had to be talk to and walk thou the idea and then there is mark zuckerberg who stole the idea and the concept and even stole the reason when zuckerberg says he wonted to connext the world he stole that from a email
Zuckerberg made a decision: he decided to keep Facebook a privately-held company for much to long, but this is the mentality of a mendacious thief that doesn’t like to give back what he has stolen.
David Ebersman, Facebook’s Chief Financial Officer, increased the size of the offering at the last minute to make sure all his insiders could pull their money out before future investors could sell theirs. This was the glitch. There was no real glitch. It was all Facebook cabal manipulation. Their finger pointing to NASDAQ is a lie meant to fool the unsuspecting.
in college. Specifically, according toThe Internet is very shocked and upset that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was kind of weird and also creepy, back Business Insider, Zuckerberg used Facebook to get the email passwords of two Harvard Crimson reporters who were running a potentially damaging story about how Zuckerberg maybe stole ideas from these other two social network entrepreneurs. Business Insider is reporting that “he examined a log of failed logins to see if any of the Crimson members had ever entered an incorrect password into TheFacebook.com. If the cases in which they had entered failed logins, Mark tried to use them to access the Crimson members’ Harvard email accounts. He successfully accessed two of them.”
What he found was that the reporters thought he was kind of weird and creepy:
From: Elisabeth Susan Theodore
To: Timothy John McGinn
David Kirkpatrick, you persist in spinning a yarn . . . Zuckerberg may have stolen this and that idea from Aaron Greenspan (houseSYSTEM) and the Winklevosses (Harvard Connection / ConnectU), but you know that is a misleading tale since you KNOW that Zuck stole the basic concept for Facebook from David London and that Zuck stole the ACTUAL source code that made it work from Leader Technologies from Columbus, Ohio.
■ At least one US Federal Judge (Judge Kimberly A. Moore) owns Facebook stock without disclosing it. Did this judge buy stock or was some also given to her by Facebook or Facebook cronies? Shame on Judge Moore, she’s a former patent law professor and knows better.
Aaron Greenspan, you stole the idea for “FaceCash” and you stole the idea for Facebook from David London. You launched Facebook on houseSYSTEM and called it “FaceNet” to hide the fact that you stole the idea.
Here’s a list of all the people who know for certain that Facebook is stolen… the idea from David London and the platform source code from Leader Technologies:
[Tex, I updated the list just for you! - Newbe (This is all too true, sadly, in my opinion of course.) What if these crooks used their talents for creating instead of thieving?]
1. Zynga, founded by CEO Mark Pincus
2. Michael Arrington (Facebook alternative-story pitchman)
3. Wayne Chang (c’mon Wayne, tell the truth)
4. Joe Green (c’mon Joe, tell the truth)
5. Aaron Greenspan (ahhmmm, Aaron, shame on you bro)
6. Dustin Moskowitz (c’mon Dustin, don’t sell your soul)
7. Chris Hughes (c’mon Chris, don’t sell your soul)
8. Cameron and Taylor Winklevoss (c’mon guys, tell the truth instead of put your extortion hands out)
9. Zuckerberg, the not genius, just a thief
10. Lisa Simpson, Orrick LLP (Facebook evidence-destroyer)
11. Ben Mezrich (Facebook alternative-story pitchman)
12. Matt Cohler (former PayPal) (Facebook’s Instagram extortionist?)
13. David Kirkpatrick, Bloomberg (Facebook alternative-story pitchman)
14. Sean Eldridge (c’mon Sean, don’t sell your soul; you know I introduced you to Chris)
15. Bono (why are you hooked up with these theives?)
16. Bill Gates (ditto)
17. Sean Parker (Facebook extortionist?)
18. Lawrence Summers, Obama’s Bailout Director (where’d all that stimulus money go??? Right into the pockets of his buddies), Former Treasury Secretary, Former World Bank Chief Economist, World Bank co-creator of the modern Russian oligarch system with the help of Juri Milner.Marc (Andreessen “sole Adviser.” (Really listen to this man when he talks. He is the ultimate Harvey Smooth-mouth… every word so carefully crafted… grab your wallet, your human rights and your soul) (Do you think he is the real ring leader here?)
19. Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO)(been hiding stuff for Larry and coordinating with the Russian oligarch boys for a long time)
20. Stephen Dawson Haggarty (c’mon Stephen, you worked on the Leader source code)
21. Reid Hoffman (former PayPal) (current LinkedIn CEO) (was this Leader Technologies’ platform as well? Seems highly likely since Hoffman was Zuck’s business coach in early 2004) (Facebook Director)
22. James W. Breyer, Accel Partners (Facebook Director)
23. Accel Partners, the dozens of Harvard boys
24. Peter Thiel (former PayPal) (Facebook Director)
25. Jim Swartz, Accel Partners (Breyer lackey?)
26. Ping Li, Accel Partners (Breyer lackey?)
27. Marc Andreessen (his patents even mention Leader’s invention – He’s now a Facebook Director)
28. Sam O’Rourke (the evidence “fixer” along with Lisa Simpson)
29. Theodore Ullyot (the legal lackey? – check out his IPO cash out)
30. Michael Rhodes, Cooley Godward LLP (the litigation rooster for the legal lackies)
31. Heidi Keefe, Cooley Godward LLP (the Rhodes wannabe for the legal lackeys?)
32. Fenwick & West LLP (you cheated your former client Leader Technologies)
33. Juri Milner (aka Yury, Jury, Juri) (Larry Summers’ / Sheryl Sandberg’s “Russian banking” lackey and $3 billion “IPO supplementer”
34. Nicholas Carlson, Business Insider / The Alley Insider (Facebook/Harvard media lackey)(creator of false Facebook origin “facts”)
35. Christopher P. King (aka “Christopher-Charles King” – USPTO Facebook record only), Patent prosecutor, Fenwick & West LLP
36. Henry Blogget (Business Insider) (David London provided volumes of information to him. He knows that Zuckerberg stole Leader’s source code)
Mark Zuckerberg never was anything but a puppet. The PayPal boys teamed with Larry Summers to prop Zuck up in front of this new global transaction system scam (why else do you think the 19-year old kid received so much Harvard Crimson coverage? ’cause the Harvard Pres. Larry Summers TOLD them to cover him!!!) The biggest scam in history IMHO. They even recruited Larry Summer’s World Bank-created oligarch boys from Moscow State University to do all his dirty programming for him.
Did these people buy stock or were they given it as hush money? Must we add Federal Judges to this list? Call the IRS.
All the above is my experienced opinion, of course.
Zynga, Groupon, Pandora and Facebook have sucked $39 billion from investors (even from Federal Circuit Judges, while they are judging in Leader v. Facebook !!!!) . . . and counting. Madoff must be asking what he did wrong. waaa ha ha
Gosh Newbe, I was hoping you would name a few names….is that the Menlo Park phone book ? You gotta give these people credit,however….if this is true, and it may or may not be, they at least,kept a good secret. Until ,that is, the first conspirator is cornered. Then let the chorus begin !! Whistle blowers will become heroes rather than convicts. I am sure as soon as Eric Holder and his topnotch DOJ finds time, they will look into it. As a simple man following this incredible blog, I am fascinated that these accusations have gone unchallenged in a legal sense, and have gone virtually unnoticed by the mainstream media. Just think of the various alleged associations in this scandal……from Moscow to Harvard to the US court system to Washington,DC to Silicon Valley to Wall Street to Pittsburgh and finally to every person in Menlo Park. Amazing that this trail ironically matches Obama`s campaign contribution list……..co-inky dinks are alive and well in this , the greatest heist in American history. .
Feb 4: Facebook launched
Feb 25: Columbia added
Feb 26: Stanford added
March 1: Yale added
March 7: Dartmouth and Cornell added
Pending: UPenn and BU to be added
When it became apparent to David London that Zuckerberg was going to steal his Facebook idea, David contacted Cameron and Taylor Winklevoss to get them to implement his Facebook idea on their Harvard Connection site. That is when Zuckerberg logged in to ConnectU and flooded it with FAKE information. David filed a complaint with the FBI saying that is not the way people are to conduct themselves in the internet. David then went to Aaron Greenspan who was running his houseSYSTEM and asked him (under a nondisclosure agreement) to implement Facebook on his site, which he agreed to do. However, instead of acknowledging David London’s idea, Greenspan not-so-cleverly gave the idea the name “Face Net” to avoid giving David credit. Greenspan stole the idea too. Harvard seems to be breeding liars and thieves.
David London then opened up the Facebook idea to students at Columbia, Stanford and Yale. To stop Zuckerberg from getting into Columbia a Google-bomb was created to retaliate. Columbia sophomore Cody Hess, an “elite” member of the CUcommunity, declared a school-wide “Google-bomb.” Spinella updated his CUcommunity journal on Saturday with a message detailing the birth of the Google-bomb.
Hey Tex, David London submitted to a polygraph test by senior polygraph experts: “No Deception Indicated (Truthful).”
If anyone doubted whether this administration would stoop to interfering in Leader’s patent reexamination (Director David Kappos’ unprecedented order remanding Leader’s patent for a 3rd reexam before Facebook’s IPO), this ruling proves that they are prepared to interfere: [DLK: Click here to ready one of my post about this highly suspicious reexamination order.]
Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution
Judicial Watch is where Dr. Arunachalam accessed Judge Kimberly Moore’s financials revealing her investment in Facebook.
Thanks Donna! The link to the Congress addresses saves a lot of time! You’re the best! ! I am going to pester them until they fix this. Seems the “old boy” lawyer-judge club backed the wrong Zuck-horse. How ’bout they just enforce the laws we already have?
“Obsiquious” is the only word to describe this “news” item written by Facebook cabal lackey Nicholas Carlson in Business Insider today. Read for yourself:
I need to add two people to my Rogue’s List:
Let’s see, this is the same Juri Milner that spent an obscene $100,000,000 on a single-family home in Silicon Valley. What does this tell you about his values? What does this fawning over Milner tell you about the real Nicholas Carlson and the journalistic integrity of Business Insider (aka The Alley Insider)? The mainstream media has been quoting his “research” as THE main source of “facts” about Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook, Accel Partners, James Breyer and all things Facebook since 2004. Carlson’s “facts” are nothing more than carefully-crafted lies… and everyone on my list knows they are lies. In my opinion. Ask them about this and listen to their haughty responses.
I guess “Easy Come, Easy Go” was a core value of Alfred Nobel? Wow Mr. Carlson, have you no shame? You are such a suck up. You just compared a Russian oligarch’s pitch man to the esteemed Alfred Nobel. We haven’t read this sort of hagiographic tripe since Pravda‘s praise of the Soviet Politburo during the Cold War.
Just listened to an NPR piece last night about American efforts to stop corruption in Afghanistan. American officials complain privately that these anti-corruption efforts are wasting money due to lack of support from the Obama administration (NPR: “Several top current and former officials tell NPR the issue of corruption never got the attention it deserved in Washington.”). From what we are learning in this Leader v. Facebook case, should we be surprised?
Here’s how the NPR story starts: “U.S. officials consider widespread corruption one of the main barriers to a stable Afghanistan. They say it undermines support for the government and helps fuel the Taliban insurgency.”
Leader v. Facebook paraphrase: “U.S. officials consider widespread corruption in the U.S. Justice System one of the main barriers to a stable U.S. Economy. They say it undermines public confidence and helps fuel abuse of property rights.”
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/31/157656330/u-s-wages-sisyphean-war-against-afghan-corruption
For those posting on Twitter, Stocktwits and other newsgroups, be sure to include the complete URL address. Here is what you should type or cut and paste:
http://www.donnaklinenow.com
Then, direct them to the menu of “PREVIOUS POSTS” down the left side.
I found that
http://www.fbcoverup.com
is another link to Donna’s site. Thanks again, Donna. You have built an outstanding forum and information base to expose the almost unbelievable corruption that is running rampant in this country.
OH MY ! Facebook admits in a public filing that over 80 million of it`s “claimed accounts” are , in fact, FAKES. As of this writing ,the IPO price of $38 has plummeted to $20…..the Zuckster has lost NINE beenie weenies since the opening stock trade. Perhaps justice has a few screws to turn on these thieves……hey Derek, how`s that world changing thing working out ?
Still looking for someone to come forward with Mr. London’s 200 missing emails, your reward is just sitting in the bank waiting! Contact me at:
bg121263@yahoo.com
IP ON YOU ZUCK. You have plummeted to $20. My god there is a God.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-01/facebook%E2%80%99s-ad-model-scam
Has anyone called the Federal Circuit office and ask them to give a public accounting for how they determined whether any of the judges bought Facebook stock, or whether any of their family members (to the “third degree”) bought Facebook stock? I am taking bets that they did not perform a “conflicts check.” Any takers on my bet? Bottom line, if the Court did not perform a conflicts search, then their decision is illegitimate. Are they going to force the Supreme Court and The Court of Public Opinion to discipline them, or are they going to admit their mistakes and fix them? Putting their heads in the sand is just not an option this time. (We’re watching your every move now.) BTW, I have written about half of the Judiciary Committee members in both House and Senate and on both sides of the isle. They have responded like I am not the first to contact them on Leader v. Facebook.
Is the Federal Circuit in ethical free fall? Has justice in this country walked off the stage? This is sad that we are having to even wonder whether or not these judges, in whom we have vested our public trust, are going to give themselves a “pass” on their evident conflicts of interest. This should not have to even be argued by the litigants or friends of the court.
Judge Kimberly A. Moore’s Fidelity Funds just announced they’re selling their Facebook stock already. Wow. wow. wow. 30 pieces of silver.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/08/facebook-sinks-to-new-low-on-exits-selling/
All the money was made by the insiders on that first day. Judge Kimberly A. Moore (or a family member) get some insider stock to sell? Or, maybe you received some cash from the fake ad revenue? Bots were loading pages and driving up advertising costs.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-01/facebook%E2%80%99s-ad-model-scam
These thrives create all kinds of ways to generate hush money and judicial favors.
Hey Donna, does the STOCK act for Judges? I must’ve missed this part of US law.
Maybe Judge Kimberly A. Moore might get a little peeved at Facebook for pulling the wool over (her) eyes..oh wait…they already did that!!
My goodness, Facebook is a lady of the night. But, “it’s just business.” That’s all.
If the these judges don’t press the rewind button after these revelations of financial conflicts, they have no professional integrity IMHO. I hear people are calling the Clerk’s office and getting no answers to their FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) questions about how the judges do conflicts checks on themselves and their families, and if they did conflicts checks in Leader v. Facebook. Given that at least two of the three Leader v. Facebook panel judges invested in Facebook, it is inconceivable that none of the other judges or their families (to the “third degree”) did not buy Facebook stock in all the hype. Taking bets this whole court are deers in the headlights on this challenge to their ethical integrity.
Jan Horbaly, Executive
Federal Circuit Clerk of Court Office
(202) 275-8000
Judges on ethics?
There is a giant elephant in the room that everyone is ignoring.
Let’s assume that Facebook actually infringed Leader’s patent. Let’s also assume that Leader’s patent was actually valid. All of the alleged infringement took place some 10 years ago. This begs the ultimate question–what has Leader been doing in all of that time?
It’s amazing to see how the comments in this blog have morphed from “Facebook infringed Leader’s patent” to “Leader invented social networking.” The truth is that the patent at issue here is a very mundane utility that allows for the sharing of information among users. That’s it. It’s not social networking. It’s not the groundbreaking phenomenon that Facebook proved to be. It’s not the invention of social sharing that has united the world. It was a utility designed to allow workgroups in corporations to update themselves on projects. That’s it.
This notion that Facebook somehow stole Leader’s thunder is simply preposterous. If Leader really invented social networking, where was the competing service to Facebook? Where was the Leader version of Myspace? Where was there even an attempt to apply this patent to the world of social networking? Even if Facebook was infringing the patent, this did nothing to prevent Leader from using the patent. I think the painful truth that everyone needs to accept is that Leader had a very narrow, discrete idea for a utility patent, but nothing more. The truth is that it was the cachet of having a platform launch from Harvard, and then spread to other Ivy League schools, then Stanford, then beyond, that created the interest in Facebook. THAT is what transformed the world. Not a mundane utility that allows for group sharing of information.
Sorry to be so blunt, but the rhetoric on this board has reached a level of hyperbole that is simply out of touch with reality. Leader might have had a nice idea for a little corporate tool for workgroups. It didn’t invent social networking. It didn’t change the world. It didn’t even try to compete with Facebook, once the concept was launched. It could have, but it was the genius of Zuckerberg and his team that ultimately brought about this revolution.
Hilda, your premise has a fatal moral flaw. That elephant just sat on you. Your premise is that financial success, no matter how achieved, is the proof of legitimacy. If that were true, Bernie Madoff would be prince, Adolf Hitler would be king, and Joseph Stalin would be saint. You are spouting Facebook’s spiel. In a world devoid of morals and ethics, you’ve got a point. In a civilized world, your premise leads to societal disaster. It says that theft is the highest virtue governing commerce.
Leader’s business choice was to file for patents. Facebook’s moral and legal duty was/is to license from Leader. Well-funded counterfeiting is a massive global problem that destroys free enterprise. Facebook is not the first counterfeiter. Yours is a counterfeiter’s bogus argument. You need to take a morals and ethics refresher class in the law school you attended, or did you skip those sessions? Need more proof? How did Facebook somehow miss not disclosing that they have up to 100 million fake accounts before the IPO? In your world that is OK too since you could get away with it and shame on the market for believing that you would disclose such a material matter?
By the way, Facebook was found guilty on 11 of 11 claims. Your attempt to dismiss the innovation as no big deal is typical of thieves: demean your target so that you can justify your theft in your conscience. Suggest you listen to that nagging guilt you are trying to suppress. That conscience was put there by God to save you.
Hilda spouts pretentious twaddle. She has probably never created anything herself. Hackers never do. They just steal other people’s creativity. I am a property developer in the UK and Hilda reminds me of squatters we have to deal with. We work hard to develop a piece of land, then a squatter moves onto the site and won’t leave. To me Facebook’s claims over Leader’s inventions are akin to claims of “squatters rights” that we have to deal with in our courts to get them to get off our properties. Join the civilized world Hilda. Seems that you people at Facebook skipped church, synagogue, ethics, civics and morals classes. Were your mums and dads really that silent about lessons of right and wrong when you were growing up?
Bravo,”law blogger” and “EnglishFan”…..this path espoused by Hilda is one that many in our deteriorating country have come to revere…..that is, the outcome is the only measure of morality, justice, and ethics. As far back as 2000 years ago, Aristotle recognized that “man” was the only animal that could mentally determine right from wrong. He said “man is rational, thus man is moral” This characteristic is ,in reality, the most important differential between us and other Earth -sharing creatures. To say that Zuckerberg`s actions (and the actions of his partners in crime) is menial because of the good it supposedly created, is simply not a rational (nor a legal) argument. ” Mr Zuckerberg, I stole your billions so that I could feed all of the humans in the Sudan !” How would that do in court ? You would have a similar argument from perhaps a few of those given the trust by our society to judge this case. ” I looked past the law because negative findings could affect the great good that Facebook will create.The fact that I bought Facebook stock on the IPO has nothing to do with my decision..Of course I would have recused myself if I thought for a minute that this secret purchase was a material violation of my responsibilities and the law” This entire process has violated the standards of ethics and justice that is the foundation of our society. PERIOD !
Hilda, haven’t you jumped ship yet? The IPO is sinking like a bo(a)t.
This Hilda person sounds like it could be one of our 12 Judges getting a little nervous….. possibly Moore or even the BIG guy Jan Horbaly. Maybe I should offer them the “reward” I’m sure they have some connections.
Mark Zuckerberg’s sister, ARIELLE +DONNA ZUCKERBERG knows how Zuck stole Facebook. Harry Schmidt and Donna now work for Google (Wildfire social start-up that Google just bought for $250 million).
You put an ad on Facebook and you get a bot for a Facebook game that they stole from EA. EA has filed a copyright infringement against Zynga.
On October 31, 2009, Michael Arrington of Tech Crunch said that Zynga intentionally worked with scam advertisers In his speech. Mark Pincus said: “So I funded [Zynga] myself, but I did every horrible thing in the book to just to get revenues .”
What Pincus did not tell you is that he knows how Mark Zuckerberg stole Facebook (the dirty little secret that all the IPO slush fund money is being used to hide). In an addendum to its Form S-1 detailing Zynga’s relationship with Facebook, it discloses a 2010 five-year agreement to exclusively use FACEBOOK CREDITS. According to the released information, Zynga has been accused several times of copying game concepts of popular games by competing developers.” These subplots all fit into the master plan hatched by the Facebook cabal to thwart US banking regulations.
The launch of Mafia Wars sparked a lawsuit from the makers of Mob Wars. The company had been criticized in the past for keeping up to 50% of the donations it collected.
Am I the only person who is thinking that Hilda’s view of property is “What’s mine is mine, and what is yours is mine”? Historically, no society has survived where personal property rights are not held sacred. The ease at which Hilda dismisses Leader’s rights to benefit from its inventions is frightening. If we don’t put a stop to this kind of entitlement mentality, America is doomed. Its a culture of theft disguised as “open” systems… only good for the thieves and hackers. They surround theft with flowery arguments about using open systems to “enhance innovation.” The dirty little secret here is immoral agenda that under-girds these people.
These people are saying that if we decide that you are not using your property the way we think you should, then we have the right to steal it and do it “better” than you. Look at that latest “Letter to Mark Zuckerberg.” More proof that this entitlement mentality pervades Facebook’s view of the world: “If we want it, you have to let us have it… dude.”
SHAME on our judges for not putting a stop to Facebook’s GAMES, and even having STOCK in Facebook WITHOUT TELLING ANYBODY. Leader is getting SCREWED. We’re all getting shafted by these pompous asses. They cannot get away with this. No way!!! I’m pissed and will not use the term “Your honor” to a judge again until they SHOW ME they know how to do the right thing. The confidence in our courts by this member of the public is in the toilet. TALK IS CHEAP.
It would appear that the Federal Circuit is supporting Hilda’s agenda and intends to give Facebook’s attorneys free reign to run our courts.
Does anyone know how Dr. A’s second brief is going? Or where we can go to find out?
I’m sure glad that our Federal Appeals Court Judges pay attention to the laws that Congress enacted! “NOT!”
This is from the Federal Judicial Center website, http://www.fjc.gov/federal/courts.nsf/autoframe?OpenForm&nav=menu5a&page=/federal/courts.nsf/page/87F10849B8C240A3852568AC00688E06?opendocument .
“Additionally, Congress has enacted laws telling judges to withdraw or recuse themselves from any case in which a close relative is a party or in which they have any financial interest, even one share of stock. Congress requires judges to file a financial disclosure form annually, so that their stock holdings, board memberships, and other financial interests are on public record. Most judges maintain more frequent lists of their holdings for lawyers to inspect.”
Notice how it points that even “1″ share of stock is supposed to have a Judge recuse himself, even if it is owned by a relative!
Players may purchase game credits directly from Zynga via PayPal. From within the game, players can purchase the points for a fee: for 21 game credits, for example.
but PayPal and Zynga know that Facebook is stolen and the Judges were paid to buy Facebook. Good luck EA.
Zynga’s relationship with Facebook is a five-year agreement to exclusively use FACEBOOK. Zynga and Groupon are draging Facebook down… or perhaps the immorality of the cabal will bring all three down?
From an OPERATION SPOTLIGHT activist Steve Williams:
[DLK: Here's a link to this comments on its own separate page http://www.donnaklinenow.com/steve-williams-conversation-with-valeri-white. Also, in case you want to send a link to a specific comment to someone, that's what the "Permalink" is for. Just right click on Permalink, then select "Copy Link Address/Location/Shortcut." That copies the link into clipboard, then you just paste that link into your email or tweet.]
Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2012
Hey everyone!
I had a particularly interesting telephone conversation with Valerie White at the Clerk of Courts office at the Federal Circuit Court today. Apparently, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has no record of Dr. A’s having ever filed an Amicus Curiae brief. My exact words to the person on the phone were: “Yes, Dr. A filed an Amicus brief on behalf of Leader Technologies, in the Leader v Facebook case. The USPS Express Mail delivery ticket was dated and timed on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 and the Court’s denial of the motion was turned around and mailed back THE SAME DAY! [DLK: Here are all these filings and the amicus curiae brief delivery receipt.]
I, then, went on to give Valerie a detailed accounting of this case history, and shw seemed very curious as to the timing of the judges’ rulings (at both courts).
I asked Valerie how it was that Facebook and Fox Business knew of the ruling ahead of Mike’s appearance on said network.
I asked Valerie if they knew of anyone filing a “Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)” request, given new revelations of conflicts of interests of 2 of the 3 presiding judges…
I then directed Valerie to Donna Kline’s site and suggested that she and anyone else in that office read up on what’s going on.
Valerie gave me her supervisor’s name and number
I suggest that everyone involved in OPERATION SPOTLIGHT call the Clerk of Court’s Office. We need to barrage them day and night until they listen. Federal employees are people too, no matter how crooked some may be, and they do not want to deal with aggravation, anymore than you and I do.
I believe Valerie was sincere and seemed very curious. She had concern in their voice—that something was amiss here. She did tell me that it was not the court’s practice to arbitrarily deny motions without being reviewed by the judges. So, either Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly acted out-of-bounds, or the whole office is in on this cover-up. Either way, calling them does get their attention, I believe.
Keep the faith! We will prevail!
—Steve
How was it that Facebook and Fox Business knew of about the rehearing ruling ahead of Mike’s appearance on said network?
I need a fox rug for my floor.
Post a Comment