Source: https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/05/white-house-scandal-spreads-to-leader-v.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:10:01+00:00

Document:
SEC counsel cleared the way for the Facebook “pump and dump” scheme in 2008?
This exemption is unprecedented. The Securities Act of 1933/34 was created to prevent private market making in unregulated stocks by unscrupulous underwriters. Such activities caused the Great Depression. However, this exemption cleared the way for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to make a $3+ billion private market in Facebook stock. They sold billions of dollars of private Facebook insiders’ stock to Russian oligarchs Yuri Milner, Alisher Amanov, DST, and Digital Sky Technologies. The dubious nature of these transactions was confirmed by Zuckerberg’s former speech writer, Katherine Loose, who wrote “no one asked if the Russians’ money was clean.” See Boy Kings.
This influx of foreign cash pumped Facebook’s pre-IPO valuation to $100 billion. One of the primary beneficiaries of this dramatic boost in valuation was James W. Breyer, chairman of Facebook and managing partner of Accel Partners LLP. Breyer is the second largest shareholder in Facebook. See SEC Insider Trading report on James W. Breyer.
Fig. 1 - SEC and Fenwick were in a hurry to give Facebook the 500-shareholder exemption before the 2008 election. SEC Counsel Thomas J. Kim failed to disclose his conflict with James W. Breyer and Accel Partners LLP when he was counsel in Washington for Latham & Watkins LLP, Breyer's National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) lobbyist. Click here for Full View of this and accompanying slides.
The SEC counsel who approved the exemption was Thomas J. Kim. The SEC is governed by Standards of Ethical Conduct which required him to disclose his conflicts of interest. Mr. Kim was Washington D.C. counsel for the law firm of Latham & Watkins LLP. Latham & Watkins was the chief lobbyist for the National Venture Capital Association (NCVA) whose chairmanships were held then by Facebook's director James W. Breyer. Therefore, Mr. Kim had a material conflict of interest which should have excluded him from any involvement with the SEC 12(g) exemption. Instead, he approved the exemption.
Is influence peddling wrong? Yes.
We also note that Fenwick & West LLP filed for the exemption for Facebook. Since Facebook was then in the process of stealing Leader Technologies’ invention at that time, and since Fenwick & West was Leader’s counsel at that time, the conflicts of interest are astounding.
"Influence peddling is the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential treatment for another, usually in return for payment."
"(a) Members of the Securities and Exchange Commission are entrusted by various enactments of the Congress with powers and duties of great social and economic significance to the American people . . . Their success in this endeavor is a bulwark against possible abuses and injustice which, if left unchecked, might jeopardize the strength of our economic institutions."
(b) It is imperative that the members of this Commission continue to conduct themselves in their official and personal relationships in a manner which commands the respect and confidence of their fellow citizens." (emphasis added).
"In the performance of his rule-making and administrative functions, a member has a duty to solicit the views of interested persons."
How could Mr. Kim have solicited the views of interested persons in accordance with Rule 200.59 in his unprecedented one-day SEC-exemption-while-you-wait? This reminds us of the equally remarkable same-day denial of Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam's Amicus Curiae Brief at the Federal Circuit in Leader v. Facebook. There, the Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly's staffer Valerie White told a caller that there was no way the judges had time to even receive the brief, much less rule on it. This was before Ms. White's phone extension was disabled and she totally dropped off the radar. Apparently she had not been know the secret handshake. The common thread in all these disturbing actions is that these people were all associated with the Facebook cabal's law firms and Harvard before they were employed by the public.
"A member should not, by his conduct, permit the impression to prevail that any person can improperly influence him, that any person unduly enjoys his favor or that he is affected in any way by the rank, position, prestige, or affluence of any person."
Do ya think that Mr. Lee had ex parte conversations with his Latham & Watkins LLP buddies at Facebook to grease the secret exemption turnaround?
"A member shall at all times comply with the Commission's Code of Behavior governing ex parte communications between persons outside the Commission and decisional employees."
"The opinions of the Commission should state the reasons for the action taken and contain a clear showing that no serious argument of counsel has been disregarded or overlooked. In such manner, a member shows a full understanding of the matter before him, avoids the suspicion of arbitrary conclusion, promotes confidence in his intellectual integrity and may contribute some useful precedent to the growth of the law. A member should be guided in his decisions by a deep regard for the integrity of the system of law which he administers. He should recall that he is not a repository of arbitrary power, but is acting on behalf of the public under the sanction of the law."
To the contrary, Mr. Lee's opinion contains only CYA phrases like "based on the representations made to the Division in your letter" and "different facts or conditions might require the Division to reach a different conclusion" and "does not represent a legal conclusion." Such statements say nothing about any arguments of (opposing) counsel.
Fig. 2—At what point do Harvard and Ivy League loyalties transform from college friendships to international influence peddling? Thomas J. Kim, Harvard alum, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, and counsel at Latham & Watkins LLP in 2003, failed to disclose his conflicts of interest. Instead, he approved the Facebook 500-shareholder exemption anyway--in one day no less! Does the U.S. Government ever move that quickly? Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley used this exemption to pump the Facebook pre-IPO stock with billions in dubious investments from Russia.
Fig. 3 - Is he not saying to the Harvard / Facebook cabal: "Just do the right thing by your fellow man Your immortal souls hang in the balance."
Between Oct. 2003 and Jun. 2004, while (1) Lawrence Summers was President of Harvard, (2) Mark Zuckerberg was a 19-year old sophomore, (3) SEC's Thomas J. Kim worked for James W. Breyer's lobbyist Latham & Watkins LLP, and (4) Fenwick & West LLP represented (stole FB's core technology from?) Leader Technologies, The Harvard Crimson carried FIFTY-ONE (51) articles about Zuckerberg and Facebook, and THREE (3) about Pope John Paul II.
It would appear that these individuals have been planning this undermining of U.S. and international financial and legal systems for the better part of two decades. They appear to have strategically placed "their people" to approve an exemption here, fix judges there, use prosecutor cronies to harass, bribe liberally, gum up the legal system with frivolity, exploit stock with cooperative underwriters, motivate politician$, etc.—all clothed in Crimson. Ironically, Harvard's motto is "Veritas" which is Latin for "Truth." And yet, to pull off their schemes, they decided to steal from a Harvard parent, Michael McKibben of Leader Technologies. Why didn't they just invite McKibben into their Club? They probably figured that given his friendship with Pope John Paul II that he marched to the tune of a different drummer. Perhaps our country would be in better shape if more did.
In any event, the SEC’s complicity in the Facebook "pump and dump" scheme is now evident. (And they have the audacity to prosecute others?) This exemption may go down as one of the biggest rip offs of all time. The reaction of our elected officials and regulatory bureaucrats to this new revelation will be quite revealing.
Why is the White House meddling in Leader v. Facebook—a patent case?
Did the President meddle in Leader v. Facebook to protect his pre-election 25+ million "Likes" on Facebook?
(April 9, 2013)—Just when you think the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal could not get more twisted, new evidence reveals that President Obama has exerted "presidential communications privilege" to prevent a FOIA disclosure (Freedom of Information Act) at the U.S. Patent Office. Anyone regularly reading Facebook's duplicitous legal writings recognizes their fingerprints on this Patent Office response. It cites "Exemption 5" which allows agencies to withhold certain kinds of information, mostly regarding internal deliberations.
Out of all the legal precedents that the Patent Office could have cited, they chose Loving v. Department of Defense, 550 F. 3d 32 (DC Circuit 2008) whose subject is the "presidential communications privilege." It states "Here the party protected by the privilege, is . . . the President of the United States." It relies on the privilege because the communications "directly involve" the President.
What the Patent Office chose to ignore in the Loving case was the "Vaughn index" which is required "to fulfill the agency's obligation to show with 'reasonable specificity'" why the requested information is being withheld. Put simply, they are required to disclose the nature of the information being withheld (topic, sender, receiver, date, reason for concealing, etc.). The Patent Office did not provide a Vaughn index as the precondition to rely on Exemption 5 in the Loving case, and should therefore lose the privilege.
The Patent Office is hiding behind presidential privilege while violating the terms of the very law it relies on for the privilege. Does this tactic sound familiar? It's lawfare—mangle every argument with truth and error to fool the unsuspecting, and thus gum up the legal system.
We ask again: Why is President Obama involved in Leader v. Facebook? Could it be to protect his political interests in his 35 million Facebook "Likes" when he is supposed to be protecting Leader Technologies constitutional rights? Remember, the President's involvement would likely have occurred before the 2012 election. Pundits say he probably edged out Mitt Romey using his Facebook "Like" data to micro-target voter blocks.
The requester has forwarded the renewed request to the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform and to the Acting Commerce Secretary. The letter to Congressman Jim Jordan is embedded below.
Click the image below to enlarge. Fig. 1—The Patent Office has just cited Executive Privilege to block release of Freedom of Information Act data in Leader v. Facebook. President Obama has also been discovered to have direct connections to Facebook's attorney Gibson Dunn LLP. Are the Facebook attorneys his version of President Nixon's White House "plumbers?"
Click here to read the RENEWED APPEAL as well as the USPTO response.
"Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
"You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."
(March 28, 2013)—A comprehensive overview of the Leader v. Facebook judicial and financial misconduct appeared yesterday. While most of the analysis is not new to AFI, it does tell the real story of Facebook's illicit beginnings. Compare this to the fantastical Zuckerberg super-hacker pabulum that the mainstream press has repeated uncritically since 2003. The essay identifies journalist David Kirkpatrick, author of The Facebook Effect, as a contributor to the Facebook fiction. Astoundingly, the mainstream media started citing Kirkpatrick for their primary research. More humorous, Facebook attorneys even QUOTED Kirkpatrick in various legal briefs to try and deceive federal judges.
Specifically, Summers failed to disclose his 20-year mentor relationship with Russian Yuri Milner. In the early 1990's, Milner collaborated with Summers and Summers' then research assistant, Sheryl Sandberg (now Facebook COO). In 1993, Milner even authored a World Bank paper for Summers that recommended what is now universally recognized as the reckless (and failed) Russian voucher system. That system has created the current oligarchies which have so corrupted the current Russian economy (PDF). It also created Alisher Asmanov, another Goldman Sachs partner. Since the Facebook IPO, Asmanov is now called the "Richest man in Russia." Summers' decisions have been very good to his protégés Asmanov, Milner and Sanberg.
Fig. 2—Click image to enlarge the Lawrence "Larry" Summers Conflicts Map.
Fenwick & West LLP paved the way for these sales by getting Facebook a one-day SEC exemption turnaround allowing Facebook to ignore the chiseled-in-granite-500-shareholder rule (a private company with more than $10 million in assets cannot have over 500 shareholder without being considered a public company by default). That exemption enabled Milner to become the second largest investor in Facebook after Accel Partners/James W. Breyer. Many now believe this money to purchase Facebook stock came from Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley TARP funds laundered through Dubai and Cyprus. Click here to view the Larry Summers Conflicts Map.
Christofer French. Sliding Down the Slippery Slope of Legal Corruption! Corruption Makes Us Numb and Also Unconscious. When We Are Consciously Corrupt, That's the Worst. Yahoo! Voices, Dec. 10, 2010.
Do these symptoms of system-wide corruption sound familiar? Will this corruption destroy America? Only if we are complacent and do nothing to stop it.
Readers are encouraged to write their senators and congresspersons. Ask them to open inquiries and investigate these disturbing revelations. Attach this essay as your background. Meet with them to discuss your concerns. Get active. If not you, who? If not now, when?
Fig. 3—The Real Facebook | A Portrait of Corruption.
Click Comment below to join the conversation ... or email your comment to amer4innov@gmail.com and we'll post it.
We all need to stop letting these thieves into our houses. We do have a bigger "Fish to Fry"..Lets get going! What is happening to our Constitution and our rights is HIDEOUS!!
Judge Stark was sworn in: (excerpt from hearing) “Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Mr. Lohier. I do. Judge Stark. I do. Senator Kaufman. Thank you. Let the record show the nominees have taken the oath.
A couple of questions come to mind after reading.
1. Judge Stark’s conduct in Leader v. Facebook means he flat out lied to the Senate when he said that he will “carefully apply the precedent of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to the facts of the case as they appear before me.” Judge Stark ignored his own sworn promise to Congress just three months later when he ignore clear Supreme Court and Appeals cases for testing the on sale bar so-called “evidence,” which wasn’t evidence at all. It was Cooley Godward fabrication.
2. Knowing “both how difficult but how important it is to put together a case”, was Judge stark trying to derail Leaders case when he ignored his own court order telling Leader that they were only to answer Interrogatory No. 9 in the present tense! Then ruled that they should have answered differently and then not “apply the precedent of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals to the facts of the case “.
In my mind he is too smart not to have known he was breaking the law for Cooley. That was very obviously the price of his appointment from Cooley’s man in the White House, Don Stern.
This administration has both memory and truth problems.
Folks, you can’t just make this stuff up. Read the records for yourself. Judge Stark said everything here and it is not taken out of context! Simple questions with simple answers he thought the Senators and public wanted to hear.
HIS ACTIONS HAVE PROVED HIS WORDS WERE UNTRUTHFUL AND MEANINGLESS!
"And finally, with respect to impartiality, my belief is there can be no sacred cows. We have to go with full force and fervor against anyone who violates investors’ trust, large or small, regardless of their standing in the investment community."
Let's see, she approved the Facebook "Pump & Dump" scheme, probably the biggest stock manipulation scheme in the history of America that allowed insiders like James W. Breyer and Accel Partners (her Chief Counsel Thomas J. Lee's buddy from Latham & Watkins) to dump over $16 billion of insider stock on Day 3 of the Facebook IPO.
Another liar. Wait, let me check, is she an attorney? Yes! Sorry, I was being redundant. "Attorney ethics" is probably the biggest scam going.
S. Hrg. 111-31, Nominations of: Mary Schapiro et al. Hearing before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, U.S. Senate, 111th Congress, First Session, Jan. 15, 2009, Y 4.B 22/3, p. 15. para. 5 .
We need to run down their investments to see if any of these individuals have held Facebook stock. The law on this BTW, is 5 CFR § 4401.102 (SEC Ethical Conduct), Prohibited and restricted financial interests and transactions.
Bottom line, if either Shapiro or her husband or children held Facebook stock directly or indirectly, they are in breach. This doesn't even address the rules that tells all government employees to "avoid even the appearance of impropriety."
"she [MARY SCHAPIRO] attended George Washington University law school, where she met her husband, Charles Cadwell, now an attorney at the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank. They have two teenage daughters, Anna and Molly.
Schapiro was nominated for SEC Chairperson on January 14, 2009, just four months after Cadwell's last donation to Obama. Pay to play? So much for "avoid the appearance of impropriety".
While hearing the Leader v. Facebook case where she had undisclosed stock in Facebook, Judge Kimberly A. Moore disqualified herself in another case becase her husband, MATTHEW J. MOORE, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, had submitted an amicus curiae brief in another case. That bothered her more than holding stock in a litigant!
Where have we heard of Latham & Watkins LLP before? Ah yes, SEC Chief Counsel Thomas J. Kim (approved the Facebook 500-shareholder "pump & dump" exemption) worked there when Latham represented Facebook's James W. Breyer when he was chairman of the National Venture Capital Association.
Isn't this another interesting "koinky dink," Matt Moore joined Latham & Watkins on February 22, 2010... five months before the Leader v. Facebook trial.
"Obama Political Appointees Using Secret Email Accounts" by Jack Gillum, 06/04/13 10:44 ET EDT.
BE SURE TO ASK FOR THESE SECRET EMAILS IN YOUR FOIA REQUESTS. (Taking bets they won't comply! However, when they don't, they're just digging their holes deeper.) We all need to keep comparing notes about what is and isn't being provided.
28 USC 455 "...(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: ... He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship of them, or the spouse of such a person ... is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding."
Talk about feathering nests in DC, Tobin, Obama, Harry Reid and Judge Wallach are tight as a drum. Reid is the Senator who put Wallach forward for nomination. Reid probably gave the Wallach/Tobin lessons on how to fund family members with government money, since his four attorney sons are all funded by legislation pushed forward by Reid.
It is telling that Tobin's bios fail to mention that she is married to a Federal Circuit judge.
Thank you all! You're digging up good evidence and facts. Keep going. We'll get to the bottom of this cesspool eventually. It appears to be "deep and wide."
That's a lot of donating to OBAMA just a few weeks before the Nov. 4, 2008 Presidential election. More Pay to Play? Obama appointed Tobin as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Performance and Improvement at the Department of Education on July 28, 2009.
*Note: According to the FEC rules, this is not an adequate description of the purpose of this refund which occured just four days before the Presidential election.
Public records on KATHERINE C. TOBIN, spouse of Federal Circuit Judge Evan J. Wallach. Judges are required to disclose conflicts of interest in cases before them to the "third degree" of relationship, so the conduct of these individuals vis a vis Facebook and Facebook holdings are relevant.
How many of these "third degree" family members hold stock in Facebook that Judge Kimberly A. Moore did not disclose in Leader v. Facebook?
Names: Matthew J. Moore, Age?
(Judge Kimberly A. Moore), Age?
When looking at all this new information, I think a reasonable person would ask 2 questions.
To point out the obvious in light of the continuing revelation of the cover-up of evidence, in 2007 during the ConnectU case. That’s right the same case Facebook tried to have sealed, the district judged ruled and signed an “Order for Discovery of Computer Memory Devices” on September 13, 2007. The company in possession of the hard drives at the time was Parmet and Associates.
Now fast forward to the 2012 sworn deposition testimony at the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP offices, of the Facebook experts who examined the hard drives.
On page 64, line 18-25 and continuing to Page 65, lines 1-5,.
“Q. When did this examination occur of these 28 devices belonging to Mr. Zuckerberg?
A. In around September of 2010.
Q. How long did that work take in California?
A. It was more than several days, I don't recall the full length, the exact length of how long it took.
Q. And who paid you to do the work?
Remember folks Leader was told these hard drives were lost!! Leader’s discovery had just closed on May 14 2010. Miraculously they appear in the Ceglia v Facebook trial and are known to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Facebook attorneys????? They made the arrangements to have them examined!!!!!!!
Did Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorneys for Facebook have a legal obligation to produce these hard drives when requested by Leader even after the close of discovery? Were they just misplaced?
Are Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorneys for Facebook guilty of Tampering with Evidence because they concealed the hard drives from Leader and the District Court during Discovery? They were evidently aware of their location!
Is New York based US Attorney Preet Bharara going to step in with this new evidence and file charges against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP Facebook attorneys for Obstruction of Justice for the cover-up of evidence? One of his former employers was Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Now try to answer the 2 questions asked in the beginning. As with most things it is a few people who seem to drag down the majority. I think a Congressional hearing is in order to investigate the misconduct, (a legal term meaning a wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts.), by members of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, associated with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP !!!!
I am going to throw in this little tidbit.
Should Thomas G Hungar have notified Leaders attorneys that he filed an Amicus Brief for the Federal Circuit Bar Association in defense of Judge R Rader and the Federal Circuit Judges, since it was less than 2 years when he represented Facebook in front of these same judges? Might a reasonable person say there was a conflict of interest? Did Judge R Rader know that Attorney Hungar filed the brief for the Federal Circuit Bar Association in all the judges’ behalf? Most everywhere you read about conflicts they say that judges, attorneys and mediators need to be diligent to prevent conflicts. There is even software to help them in this matter.
If the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has the following requirements for anyone charged with being a mediator for the court, are the rules then relaxed for attorneys to argue cases before them????????
Some of the guidelines for a mediator on the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals website state;If the mediator is affiliated with a law firm and that law firm represents or has represented a party to an appeal within the last 5 years, the mediator will recuse him or herself if appointed to mediate any case involving that party. Before final selection of a mediator, the circuit mediation officers inquire about conflicts of interest. The mediator must not presently represent either party or any amicus for any purpose, must disclose any past relationships that he or she had with counsel, counsels' firms, and the parties, and must disclose any potential "issues" conflicts. Mediators are required to decline from participating in any cases in which there is a conflict of interest, in which they perceive a conflict, or in which a reasonable person would perceive a conflict.
As of Tuesday morning, Amazon sales of George Orwell's Dystopian novel 1984 had jumped 6,021 percent in just 24 hours, to No. 213 on Amazon's bestseller list. As NPR's Alan Greenblatt recently pointed out, many people have found uncomfortable resonances between Orwell's "Big Brother" state and the news that broke last week of U.S. government surveillance programs.
The world is following a pack of devils, it would appear.
For those who may be curious. dave123 is a very smart guy who has a form of dyslexia where the words on a page appear correct to him, but are often mixed. As is often the case with such folks, his thinking skills are off the charts, he just has challenges with expression. With dave123 read for concepts and you'll get the gist of his thoughts. He has connected a lot of dots and is finally relieved others are finally waking up to the facts he saw long ago.
This is very informative and graceful blog, which is apreciable. The Indian Institute of Journalism and New Medi Courses (IIJNM) is one of South Asia’s leading post-graduate schools of journalism and media. Located in Bangalore in the heart of India’s high-tech industry. The Indian Institute of Journalism and New Medi Admissions is very simpler. This institute offers an excellent curriculum that combines both theory and practice to prepare its graduates for positions in the media industry. Thanks for sharing this useful information.

References: v. 
in dubio
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 4401
 v. 
 v. 
 v.