Source: https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2013/08/uspto-conduct-parallels-foia.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:12:07+00:00

Document:
Fig. 2 – On Jun. 15, 2013 Congressman Darrell Issa held up a blacked-out IRS document provided to the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform that is investigating IRS targeting of political groups. This document was in response to a requests for documents by the committee. Photo: C-SPAN.
Fig. 3 – Whited-out USPTO document provided to a third party asking for statutory judicial financial and background disclosures in Leader v. Facebook. CLICK HERE or click image to see the Aug. 7, 2013 Patent Office response.
"American society's new battleground—citizens who exploit the law's good faith expectations, and breach their public oaths, in order to neuter checks and balances and prevent accountability"
Fig. 1—The Facebook crowd is waging LAWFARE against the American public and the world. See the KGB logo below for more on the KGB Department of Disinformation who developed this assymetric warfare tactic, and which is still used by the FSB... and the Facebook cabal.
Justice advocates today called on Congress to step in and fix the Wild West abortions of American justice that have been exposed by the Leader v. Facebook scandal. One activist asked, "How can any innovator rely upon the trustworthiness of the U.S. Patent Office and the Justice Department, after knowing that all the judges held Facebook stock during Leader case? I am thinking it makes no sense to file my new patents until this trust issue is fixed, if it ever gets fixed. My confidence level is low right now."
CLICK HERE to view a document received today titled Lawfare which highlights the big picture of the Leader v. Facebook corruption. Readers should note that we have been writing about "lawfare" for some time. It was a highly successful assymetric warfare tactic of the former Soviet KGB's Department of Disinformation. Facebook's Moscow partners have evidently dusted off the training manuals and find the American Congress and Public easy marks. Click footnote 14 following for a helpful dissertation on lawfare.
The bylines are even more interesting: "When lawyers, bankers and techs conspire illegally with the President to seize powers, democracy dies" and "American society’s new battleground―citizens who exploit the law’s good faith expectations, and breach their public oaths, in order to neuter checks and balances and prevent accountability." The document suggests that Congress take away Facebook technology engine and give it back to the inventor, Leader Technologies. By doing so, the Facebook crowd would lose their primary organizing tool. The illustration contains a background photo of President Obama's toast with Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison and the late Steve Jobs at a pre-election Silicon Valley dinner in February 2011. A fitting comeuppance.
(Aug. 15, 2013)—The U.S. Patent Office continues to dig its Leader v. Facebook ethics hole deeper. On Aug. 7 the Patent Office responded to a Jul. 9, 2013 FOIA request (CLICK HERE).
For starters, the Deputy FOIA Officer, Kathryn W. Siehndel, still does not disclose her prior employment by Facebook’s attorney, White & Case LLP. Now, she refuses to provide any biographical or financial information about herself, Director David R. Kappos or any of the Leader v. Facebook patent judges.
Tellingly, Siehndel provides no required public disclosure information about Judge Stephen C. Siu, the judge assigned by Director David Kappos to oversee the 3rd Leader Technologies politically-motivated patent reexam. She uses HIPAA healthcare information protection statutes as her justification for withholding mandated judicial financial and background disclosures. The request did not ask for healthcare information, and more than 70% of the information identified was withheld.
Public disclosure of judicial and senior staff financial records is required by law. The Patent Office even says so in a current job posting for an administrative judge at JOBSUSA: "The Ethics in Government Act of 1978... requires senior officials in the executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government... The OGE 278 [Financial Disclosure Report] is available to the public." Therefore, the FOIA response breaks the law by refusing to provide those reports in a public FOIA request. In fact, not a single judicial financial report has been provided by the FOIA officer to this or any previous FOIA request.
The Patent Office's disturbing FOIA conduct directly contradicts their own words in their current USAJOBS posting. A reasonable person can only assume that the Patent Office is running some sort of protection racket. Perhaps these judges become compromised once they are employed, then it becomes the FOIA counsel's and Director's jobs to protect those individuals from exposure of their misconduct. Perhaps this is where the side deals to protect cronies begins. Wink. Wink. Since they are refusing to release even one financial report, one can only conclude that they must be hiding many sins.
Update Aug. 20, 2013—AFI investigators have just learned that USPTO FOIA counsel Kathryn W. Siehndel (formerly employed by Facebook's counsel White & Case LLP) made false claims in her response. She wrote "In our July, 9, 2013 telephone call to clarify this request, you indicated that you intended your requests to be limited to records related to the subject line . . . 3rd Reexam." CLICK HERE to read this statement in her letter. This claim is impossible since the requester did not email the request until 5:58PM on July 10, 2013. CLICK HERE to see that email. The Express Mail copy was not received until 8:21AM on July 12, 2013. CLICK HERE to see that delivery receipt.
Fig. 4—U.S. Patent Office gorging on Facebook burgers, since May 20, 2010, with Director David J. Kappos leading the feeding.
In fabricating her story, Ms. Siehndel appears to have become confused by the dates since the file name on the email attachment is July 8, but it was not attached and sent until July 10. She evidently believed she needed this excuse to justify her redactions. Tellingly, in her redactions one cannot find a single reference to Facebook or Microsoft. A Microsoft dictionary is among the items of alleged "prior art" that Facebook keeps putting forward (and losing on—at trial and in two previous reexams). The USPTO has almost 15,000 "likes" on Facebook.
Fig. 5—On May 20, 2010 the Patent Office issued a press release announcing its Facebook Page. Click the image to read the release by Director David J. Kappos, two months before the Leader v. Facebook trial on Jul. 19, 2010.
Rhetorical questions: Does the USPTO's daily consumption of Facebook bias their perspectives? Of course it does. Can one taste-test two burgers impartially when one has been gorging on one of the brands for years? Of course not. This is precisely why we have conflicts of interest disqualification laws; none of which were followed by the entire U.S. Patent Office.
Update Aug. 21, 2013—AFI investigators just uncovered another smoking gun. Not only did Kathryn W. Siehndel conceal FOIA information about Facebook and Director Kappos, but she failed to even provide a May 20, 2010 USPTO press release by Director David J. Kappos announcing the USPTO's new Facebook Page. Note that Kappos even uses the word "consume." (see Fig. 4). [Editorial: We must pat our volunteer investigators on the backs for this find.] CLICK HERE to read the press release.
Fig. 6—David J. Kappos, USPTO Director. Kappos made over 300 Facebook posts during the Leader v. Facebook proceedings, including posting pictures and videos of himself 17 times. Source: USPTO.
Here are a few statistics about the Patent Office's Facebook Page. Patent Office Director David J. Kappos has used Facebook as a Director’s exclusive newsletter that carries his propaganda, without the possibility of objection, dissent or public comment (as AFI activists discovered yesterday when they attempted to post a comment about Leader v. Facebook, which was removed). Director Kappos has made a total of 303 Facebook entries since May 14, 2010. Kappos is mentioned by name in 40 Facebook entries (CLICK HERE). Kappos' photo appears in 15 Facebook entries. Kappos' video appears in 2 Facebook entries. Kappos ordered the 3rd Leader patent reexam on Apr. 17, 2012 (CLICK HERE).
Worse, Siehndel even redacted information that the judges themselves have disclosed on their LinkedIn Profiles. These judge disclosures make a mockery of Ms. Siehndel's actions, especially in light of the high-sounding call for transparency and accountability in President Obama’s Jan. 21, 2009 FOIA speech, also cited in the second table below.
The USPTO Leader v. Facebook judges and Siehndel are highlighted below in yellow.
The conflicted USPTO FOIA officer, Kathryn W. Siehndel, concealed these relationships that are known from the judges' own LinkedIn profiles. See more at Faces of the Facebook Corruption.
* Facebook stakeholder who significantly benefit from decisions favorable to Facebook.
* Facebook's attorney in the Leader v. Facebook case.
Three-term President, Patent & Trademark Office Society (Conflict). See USPTOAPANET Facebook Page.
Director David J. Kappos. Click image to read the Facebook post. This proves unequivocally that the Patent Office is biased against Leader Technologies. forum to communicate with you and share the latest news from the USPTO.
We know thousands of innovators, members of the intellectual property practice community, and USPTO employees are active on Facebook, so we’re pleased to be able to bring information and updates to you here. But this is also a place where you can tell us what YOU think. We encourage you to comment on our posts and tell us what you “like” and “dislike.” Check back here daily, as we will be providing regular updates including press releases and other news, details on upcoming events, speeches, updates from my blog, photos, video, fun facts and more. Just like checking your Facebook page, we hope visiting our page will become part of your daily routine."
U.S. Patent Office's Facebook Page, Aug. 19, 2013. See also Fig. 4 above.
* Leader Technologies' patent attorney was Judge MacDonald's law professor, Professor James P. Chandler, III, Director of the National Law Center at George Washington University. Was the relationship good or strained? Either way, it deserves disclosure and investigation.
* Judge Rader is concealing massive conflicts of interest among his judges involved in the Leader v. Facebook case—judges who held stock in Facebook during the proceedings. In addition, Judge Rader is a former law student of Leader's attorney, Professor James P. Chandler III, with whom Judge Rader had differences while he was chief counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch regarding the Federal Trade Secrets Act and the Economic Espionage Act of 1996.
Judge Morgan's information is a jumble. Three different sets of disclosures. The statutory conflicts database is largely whited-out. Nowhere does he disclose his Microsoft conflict.
** See Judge Siu above .
* Verisign is a company funded by Facebook's largest investor and Zuckerberg business master, James W. Breyer, Accel Partners LLP.
* See Judge Bonilla above.
*Justice Department was being advised by Facebook's Leader v. Facebook attorney, Cooley Godward LLP and Perkins Coie LLP, as well as President Obama's personal counsels Robert F. Bauer and Anita B. Dunn.
**The Leader v. Facebook District Court that ignore significant law to rule in Facebook's favor.
* Facebook's Leader v. Facebook appeals attorney.
* Facebook Leader v. Facebook trial attorney with Cooley Godward LLP.
* See Judge Siu above.
** Facebook's Leader v. Facebook trial attorney with Gibson Dunn LLP and Blank Rome LLP.
* Facebook's attorney; long time law firm of President Obama's personal White House counsels Robert F. Bauer and Anita B. Dunn.
* James W. Breyer, Accel Partners' law firm, Facebook's original venture capital investor and largest shareholder; currently employer of Leader v. Facebook Judge Kimberly A. Moore's husband, Matthew J. Moore.
** See Judge Clement above.
Table 1 - Analysis of requested USPTO conflicts of interest data about judges and employees that was concealed.
Patent judges are claiming a privilege of privacy not even claimed by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
CLICK HERE to see the U.S. Supreme Court financial diclosures at OpenSecrets.org.
No. Unwarranted invasion of privacy. No public interest identified.
The "public interest" is already identified in U.S. Law. For example: "Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." 28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge.
Pres. Obama Memo., Jan. 21, 2009: "FOIA: A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency." Source: USPTO.
USPTO does not require a requester to give a reason for requesting agency records. 37 CFR §104.4.
"[the FOIA requester's] need or intended use for the documents is irrelevant." North v. Walsh, 881 F.2d 1088, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
See also U.S. Justice Dept. FOIA Guide, Procedural Requirements, May 2004, fn. 58.
Even the U.S. Supreme Court justices make their biographies public. Patent judges are claiming privileges not granted in any jurisdiction.
Disqualification: "A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including by not limited to circumstances in which . . . (b) a lawyer with whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association served as a lawyer concerning the matter" Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges & Judicial Employees. Canon (3)(C)(1)(c).
No records. Custodians of this information unknown. Identify the location of this information within the USPTO systems.
Conflicts screening is mandatory — "the Judicial Conference requires all judges to use an electronic conflicts screen system." US Judicial Conference, Dec. 10, 2009, p. 5.
Ms. Siehndel has specified an unfair requirement before she will comply. She says the third party must tell her where this AFLCTACAFC information is on the USPTO internal computers.
We know this information exists because some of the judges admit membership in public writings. Presumably such association memberships and affiliations would be required by their conflicts of interest disclosures . . . and therefore, in the USPTO "electronic conflicts screen system" that is mandated by the Judicial Conference.
"... the USPTO has no records."
This assertion is contrary to their Mar. 12, 2013 FOIA claim of Executive Privilege.
Employees of the Executive Branch shall not lie, mislead, misrepresent, fail to disclose conflicts, or act in a biased or partial manner toward one party or the other. Standards of Ethics, 5 CFR 2635.
Table 2 – Analysis of USPTO FOIA request and response: Col A—The Request, Col B—The Response, Col C—The Law.
The Patent Office clearly cannot sustain this level of badness for very long. The rules and common sense are against them. The light of public accountability shines, and compliance is inevitable. The chorus for transparency and fairness is growing louder each day. We encourage whistle blowers to step forward.
The public must be able to trust the impartiality of the Patent Office. Without that trust, small business inventors will stop filing patents since they will not be able to rely on a full and fair hearing that is free of the undue influence of big infringers like Microsoft (for Facebook) and IBM (for Facebook), Judge Stephen C. Siu's former employers.
Deputy Counsel Kathryn W. Siehndel is evidently protecting Facebook and their cronies. Is the Patent Office and its parent, the Executive Branch, one big, ethically-challenged Humpty Dumpty?
 USPTO FOIA Response: Kathryn W. Siehndel, FOIA Deputy Counsel, U.S. Patent Office FOIA Response re. Leader v. Facebook, F-13-00218, Aug. 7, 2013 <Patent-Office-FOIA-Response-re-Leader-v-Facebook-F-13-00218-Aug-7-2013.pdf>; See also <http://www.leader.com/docs/Patent-Office-FOIA-Response-re-Leader-v-Facebook-F-13-00218-Aug-7-2013.pdf>.
 Obama on Transparency: Barack Obama, The White House, Memorandum of January 21, 2009. ''Title 3 – The President, Freedom of Information Act [FOIA], Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies.'' Presidential Documents, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 15, FR Doc. E9-1773, pp. 4683-4684, Jan. 26, 2009 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/uspto/2009-01-21-President_Letter_re_FOIA_Jan-21-2009-Federal-Register-Vol-74-No-15-Jan-26-2009.pdf> ("A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency.").
 Supreme Court Financial Disclosures: ''Supreme Court Justices' Personal Financial Disclosures Now Featured on OpenSecrets.org.'' OpenSecrets.org, Feb. 18, 2011 <http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/supreme-court-justices-personal-finances.html> (''Like members of Congress, justices serving on the highest court in the land are required by law to annually disclose information about their personal investments. Personal financial disclosure filings can provide information about potential conflicts of interest judges may have in cases that come before them.'').
 When judges should disqualify themselves. 28 USC § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Cornell Univ. Law School <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455>.
 No reasons needed for a FOIA request (USPTO): Public Information, Freedom of Information and Privacy, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce, 37 CFR Part 102, § 104.4, Rules and Regulations, Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 170, Aug. 31, 2000 <http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/pubfreeinf.pdf>.
 No reasons needed for a FOIA request (case law): North v. Walsh, 881 F. 2d 1088 - Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1989 at 1096 <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12171499004122825885&hl=en&as_sdt=2,36> ("In sum, North's need or intended use for the documents is irrelevant to his FOIA action; his identity as the requesting party 'has no bearing on the merits of his ... FOIA request.'").
 No reasons needed for a FOIA request (Justice Department): Freedom of Information Act Guide, May 2004, Procedural Requirements. U.S. Department of Justice, fn. 58 <http://www.justice.gov/oip/procereq.htm#N_58_> (''As we have repeatedly stated, Congress 'clearly intended' the FOIA 'to give any member of the public as much right to disclosure as one with a special interest [in a particular document].''')(citations omitted).
 Justice Sonia Sotomayor disclosed her extensive biography without claiming breach of privacy: S. Hrg. 111-503 - CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR, TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, Jul. 13-16, 2009, pp. 164-335. <http://www.fbcoverup.com/com/supremecourt/S-HRG-111-503-Confirmation-Hearing-Sonia-Sotomayor-Jul-13-16-2009-CHRG-111shrg56940.pdf#page=164>.
 Judges and judicial employees must disclose their prior professional and personal relationships: Canon (3)(C)(1)(c). Code of Conduct for United States Judges, United States Courts. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct/CodeConductUnitedStatesJudges.aspx>; Codes of Conduct, Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees. United States Courts. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPolicies/CodesOfConduct.aspx>.
 Conflicts screening for judicial employees is mandatory: Written Testimony of The Honorable M. Margaret McKeown U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Chair, Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference of the United States appearing on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy, Hearing on: Examining the State of Judicial Recusals After Caperton v. A.T. Massey, Dec. 10, 2009, p.5. United States Courts. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.uscourts.gov/News/Viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/News/2009/docs/HonMMargaretMcKeownTestimony-JudicialRecusalsHrg-HouseJudSubcomCts12-10-09.pdf> ("the Judicial Conference requires all judges to use an electronic conflicts screen system.").
 FOIA appeal of a previous obstructed USPTO disclosure: FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Renewed Appeal To U.S. PATENT OFFICE Response, Leader v. Facebook, Apr. 2, 2013, F-13-00064, A-13-00009, p. 12 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/foia/FOIA-Renewed-Appeal-To-U-S-PATENT-OFFICE-Response-Leader-v-Facebook-Apr-2-2013.pdf#page=12>.
 Ethical standard for White House and Patent Office employees (Executive Branch): 5 C.F.R. Part 2635: Standards of ethical conduct for employees of the executive branch. U.S. Office of Government Ethics. Accessed Aug. 16, 2013 <http://www.oge.gov/Laws-and-Regulations/OGE-Regulations/5-C-F-R--Part-2635---Standards-of-ethical-conduct-for-employees-of-the-executive-branch/>.
 U.S. Patent Office Press Release announcing its Facebook Page, May 20, 2010: "US Patent Office Page on Facebook." USPTO Press Release, May 20, 2010 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/kappos/USPTO-Press-Release-re-FACEBOOK-PAGE-May-20-2010.pdf>; See also <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2SfG2nEsMfqa3A1YjR1OC1sM3c/edit?usp=sharing>.
 Lawfare—Soviet Assymetric Warfare Tactics: Bartman Christi Scott. "LAWFARE: Use of the Definition of Aggressive War by the Soviet and Russian Governments." Dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Aug. 2009 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/articles/Bartman-Christi-Scott-LAWFARE-Use-of-the-Definition-of-Aggressive-War-by-the-Soviet-and-Russian-Governments-BGSU-Aug-2009.pdf>.
 U.S. Patent Office USAJOBS posting for an administrative patent judge requiring a Financial Disclosure Report. USAJOBS. Accessed Aug. 23, 2013 <http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/uspto/USAJOBS-Search-Jobs-USPTO-PTAB-2013-0014.pdf#page=5> (''The Ethics in Government Act of 1978... requires senior officials in executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government. If selected for this post ion you will be required to file a Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278). The OGE 278 is available to the public. The primary purpose of disclosure is to assist agencies in identifying potential conflicts of interest between a filer's official duties and the filer's private financial interests and affiliations.'').
Alternatively, we encourage you to contact the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform with your information. Be sure to approach a Congressperson who is not already known to be taking donations from Facebook and Friends. We hear nothing but crickets on Capitol Hill from Facebook's Friends.
You can check on anyone's political donation history at the Federal Election Commission. Also Organizing For Action (barackobama.com) donations do not appear on the FEC database, but they self-report.
Anyone can send in a FOIA request to the Patent Office to drill down on the conduct being exposed here. Here's a link to the instructions. The request can be in writing or by email. Be sure to follow the instructions carefully, because as we can see, the FOIA Officer is looking for any reason she can find to deny your request.
As we are seeing, the information that agencies conceal, deny or black/white out can be as instructive as what they disclose. Let's keep pounding. We pay these people their salaries and they owe us duties of loyalty, honesty and good faith.
Administrative Patent Judge JENNIFER B. BISK also worked at Facebook's attorney Cooley Godward LLP firm (the Leader v. Facebook trial attorney - Michael Rhodes, Heidi Keefe, Mark Weinstein, Jeffrey Norberg, Theodore Ullyot, Sam O'Rourke, Elizabeth Stameshkin) in 2006-2007. We missed this in earlier analysis.
Ran across this guy: Patent Judge David McKone.
He was at Latham & Watkins LLP, Facebook's James W. Breyer's firm, between 2004-2008. That's when all the Leader v. Facebook theft and dirty work was done. Then he moved to, ahhhmmm, Chicago and worked at Nixon Peabody LLP until he was appointed a Patent Judge by, ahhhmmmm, Obama-appointee Director David Kappos and Federal Circuit Judge Randall R. Rader. Just look at the guy's picture. Mole? No wonder Siehndel doesn't want to release their background information. Dollar to donuts he's got a ton of Facebook and related stock.
I scratched an itch this weekend. It has started to bug me that Wikipedia has NO ENTRIES for Leader Technologies, Michael McKibben or Jeffrey Lamb, the inventors of social networking. This parallels the fact that one hears nothing but crickets from the mainstream media on Leader v. Facebook, the corruption, the judicial misconduct. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
This observation led me to investigate Wikipedia's history. They appear to use "Socialtext" software, founded in 2002, and funded in 2004 by OMIDYAR NETWORK and REID HOFFMAN (PayPal, LinkedIn, Facebook). Ahhhmmmmm. This is the exact same time frame as the Accel Partners'/James W. Breyer's/Zuckerberg's theft of Leader's software at Harvard in late 2003 early 2004 (Facebook went live on Feb. 4, 2004). Hoffman now even admits publicly to having coached the 19-year old Zuckerberg at Harvard then. Hoffman was a busy boy. PayPal sale, fund LinkedIn, fund Facebook, fund Socialtext/Wikipedia.... one gets the impression that the CROWD AROUND ACCEL PARTNERS AND JAMES W. BREYER was frantically carving up Leader's invention like an elephant--every man and women getting their chunk. How could one person like Hoffman do so much, so quickly, unless the core tech was stolen? Remember, Zuckerberg claims to have done his part in "one to two weeks" while studying for finals.
OMIDYAR was founded in 2004. One of its senior directors is TODIR TASHEV from Moscow, Russia who used to work for JP Morgan and maintains strong ties to Moscow as well as Harvard. Hmmmmm. Still more Harvard people. Socialtext even took an investment by the University of Utah's Endowment in April 2009 -- that's HARRY REID'S alma mater!
Given that Leader and McKibben have had some remarkable accomplishments and contributions, like the Hurricane Katrina lifesaving with Governor Kathleen Blanco and the State of Lousiana, not to mention inventing SOCIAL NETWORKING, one gets the impression that Wikipedia is very intentionally not telling the truth.
Sigh. You don't understand how Wikipedia works. It's all publicly authored. This means that the reason there is no entry for Leader or McKibben is because no one ever wrote an article. Go write your own article, post it, and then if the Wikipedia authorities pull it you can start talking about conspiracy theories.
Double Sigh. There you go again Craven, jumping to the conclusion that no one has done this before you enlightened us in your great wisdom. You are very naive. The collusion is obvious to all but you, apparently.
AFI researchers have been digging more into the FOIA disclosure and discovered more mess. Take note of a new 4th paragraph about USPTO FOIA deputy counsel Kathryn Sienhdel's outright lie about calling the requester (she did not), updates on the conflicts in Table 1, especially the fact that the ENTIRE US PATENT OFFICE has been using Facebook since before the Leader v. Facebook trial. Simply put, the whole of the Patent Office drank the Kool-Aid, and are thus conflicted out of any decisions regarding Leader Technologies' patent.
Let me get this right, the Patent Office itself started a Facebook Page before the Leader v. Facebook trial. The Director David Kappos urged all 10,000 employees, including all the judges, to visit it DAILY. They currently have 14,700 "likes."
And they want us to believe that they are not BIASED against Leader Technologies??? What planet is this?
Here is one of the press release by the Patent office! This was made while the Patent office is still in the reexam of Leaders patent!!!!! Leader was still in the court system with their appeals!!!!
This "proves" that the Patent office is conflicted, biased and corrupted. Remember there is not a Patent on the core technology for Facebook other than Leader's 761 patent which has been proven in court and Leader was issued a Patent by the USPTO, reaffirmed twice in previous reexams!!!!
Now the patent office is trying to steal Leader's by using scheming lawyers inside and outside the patent office!
Contact your Congressional representatives and express your outrage and request an investigation!
What?? This is beyond ricidulous.
So let's say there is an Apple patent and they allege that Microsoft infringes it through Windows. Apple patent is up for review. By your logic, no one at the patent office could use Windows because this would be a conflict of interest. It would show bias.
In fact the patent office would be prohibited from using any product involving any patent being challenged. Want to use that Xerox machine? Sorry. Conflict of interest. Bias. Want to use that AT&T long distance. Sorry, Sprint is suing then and the patent is under review. Conflict of interest. Bias. Want to use that Swingline stapler? Sorry, Bostitch is suing. Conflict of interest. Bias.
This sounds ridiculous because it is. You can't prohibit the patent office from having any association whatsoever with products that involve allegations of patent infringement. It's nonsensical and completely unworkable.
1. Notes of the alleged July 9, 2013 telephone call between Kathryn W. Siehndel and the requester of F-13-00218. Please include all briefing notes on conclusions drawn from this alleged conversation.
3. Conflicts of interest assessment performed before Kathryn W. Siehndel was approved as the FOIA officer for Leader v. Facebook since she was formerly employed by White & Case LLP, one of Facebook's law firms in Leader v. Facebook.
4. Conflicts of interest assessment performed by David J. Kappos's office before issuing the 3rd reexam order on Leader Technologies' patent.
5. Conflicts of interest assessments performed on the administrative patent judges (incl. Petravick, MacDonald, Siu, Hughes, Timm) assigned to any of Leader Technologies' patent reexaminations.
6. Statutory annual judicial financial disclosure of all patent judges and judicial employees involved in the Leader v. Facebook reexaminations.
7. Who among the 10,000 employees of the USPTO has been or is a member, or otherwise affiliated with the A.F.L.C.T.A.C.A.F.C. (Association of Former Law Clerks and Technical Assistances for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).
8. Please provide an unredacted copy of the judicial conflicts of interest database required by the Judicial Conference. Explain any redactions regarding subject(s) discussed, parties, dates and reasons for obscuring the content.
9. Since the USPTO has already claimed executive communication privilege in Appeal No. A-13-0004, please provide all documents related to that claim, or explain any redactions regarding subject(s) discussed, parties, dates and reasons for obscuring the content.
10. All internal documents and communications regarding the preparation and posting of content to the USPTO Facebook Page (www.facebook.com/uspto.gov) between Jan. 2010 and the present.
In general, if informaiton is to be otherwise redacted, explain any redactions regarding subject(s) discussed, parties, dates and reasons for obscuring the content.
Craven got it wrong again. Conflicts are conflicts, no matter how well known a product or brand is. The Code of Conduct for US Judges says even holding one share in a company like Apple or IBM etc. is enough to conflict a judge out of a case. The Supreme Court clarified this further by saying even the APPEARANCE of impropriety is enough to disqualify a judge. Their utter silence is prima facie evidence that these judges and employees all have their hands in the Facebook cookie jar. Gee Beev, was that wrong?
Gotta love this Facebook post by Patent Office Director Kappos on Jul. 6, 2012 -- Kappos: "I think this is really is the best time there’s ever been to be an inventor."
More Facebook Orwellian doublespeak. He and his crony administrative patent judges are making it as bad as it has ever been to be an inventor.
I have worked with HIPAA since its inception.
I find it bizarre that the USPTO FOIA counsel used health care privacy regulations to prevent disclosure of the USPTO Facebook page.
Perhaps Facebook and the USPTO had severe "allergy" problems that prevented them from disclosing legal, good faith requests. Those "allergies" might qualify for protection under HIPAA--but it takes an Alice in Wonderland twist to be able to justify the denial. I hope the USPTO is not using similar logic to deny other people's patents.
John, you need to catch up. Your knowledge seems to be slipping.
The American Bar Association published an opinion on February 13, 2013. To try and say this would not apply to all judges or could be argued against if it comes up at trial or hearing would be laughable.
Quote, "A judge may participate in electronic social networking, but as with all social relationships and contacts, a judge must comply with relevant provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and avoid any conduct that would undermine the judge’s independence, integrity, or impartiality, or create an appearance of impropriety.1".
They go on to say, "Upon assuming the bench, judges accept a duty to “respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.”3 Although judges are full-fledged members of their communities, nevertheless, they “should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens….”4 All of a judge’s social contacts, however made and in whatever context, including ESM, are governed by the requirement that judges must at all times act in a manner “that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,” and must “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”5 This requires that the judge be sensitive to the appearance of relationships with others."
I believe they are referring to all judges not just the unwashed, non Facebook believers.
As we have witnessed in the Leader v Facebook case it is evident that secrecy and nondisclosure is the norm with these Judges and lawyers.
What do you think WALLY?
Wally gives Darren an attaboy. Attorneys and judges have more ethics rules than any other profession on the planet. Ever wonder why they have such difficultly doing the right thing? Could it be because the profession actually attracts liars, cheats and thieves like moths to light? ... and we let them be "self-policing." This is like letting murderers run the prison. This system needs constitutionally overhauled. Simply making more rules and paying for more studies, etc. only gives the unscrupulous more Play Dough to manipulate.
"Corruption relies on confusion. When people are not confused, they stop corruption."
Let's end this intentional confusion by the Facebook crowd. Orwellian doublespeak is their tool for confusion.
I notice that the mobile app company SQUARE is advertising heavily to get small business vendors to use their product. Everyone should know that Facebook Cabal President Lawrence "Larry" Summers is behind that company. This probably means this is another piece in his puzzle for dominating world commerce after his buddy Obama is out of power... and he wants to be Chairman of the Federal Reserve to boot.
BG just sent this current Patent Office USAJOBS posting. This should be labeled DO AS I SAY, NOT DO AS I DO. This posting properly cites the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 that "requires senior officials in executive, legislative and judicial branches to file public reports of their finances as well as other interests outside the Government. If selected for this postion you will be required to file a Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 278). The OGE 278 is available to the public. The primary purpose of disclosure is to assist agencies in identifying potential conflicts of interest between a filer's official duties and the filer's private financial interests and affiliations."
Well, well. The USPTO denied much of this information in their FOIA response. They are being unlawful, according to their own words.
You will have to go home and take a shower after reading this expose of Facebook / Microsoft / Goldman attorney GIBSON DUNN LLP.
The article says "all of this maneuvering in and out of the courtroom explains why not a single executive has gone to jail for the financial crisis the U.S. is currently facing."
The bigger they are, the harder they fall. This is not what America's Founders had in mind for our democracy.
A federal judge has set Jan. 23 for a pretrial conference of parties involved in the giant class-action lawsuit brought against Facebook (NASDAQ:FB) as a result of its controversial May 2012 initial public offering.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet, in Manhattan, who was assigned the consolidated cases by a panel of 11 other federal judges, will preside over the conference and the subsequent trial.
Lawyers had previously said the judges would assign the trial to New York because of proximity to Facebook’s principal underwriters, Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) and JPMorgan Chase (NYSE: JPM), as well as the court’s familiarity with complex financial matters.
At one point during the summer of 2004, according to documents viewed by Business Insider, Mark told friends he had exploited a flaw in ConnectU's account verification process to create a fake Cameron Winklevoss account with a fake Harvard.edu email address.
Next, Mark told a friend he logged into the accounts of some ConnectU users and changed their privacy settings to invisible. In an IM, Mark explained his idea was to make it harder for ConnectU users to find their friends on the site, thus reducing its utility.
Mark told a friend he'd gone a step further, deactivating about 20 ConnectU accounts entirely.
In 2005 Thiel created Founders Fund, a San Francisco based venture capital fund. Other partners in the fund include Sean Parker, Ken Howery, and Luke Nosek.
In July 2010, Booker attended a dinner at a conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, where he was seated with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Zuckerberg, who had no known ties to Newark, announced in September 2010 that he was donating $100 million of his personal fortune to the Newark school system. According to an article in the New York Times, Booker and Zuckerberg continued their conversation about Booker's plans for Newark. The initial gift was made to start a foundation for education. The gift was formally announced when Booker, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Zuckerberg appeared together on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Oprah Winfrey also has been a supporter of Booker and reportedly has given millions to Newark schools and organizations.
The timing of Zuckerberg's donation was questioned by some as a move for damage control to his image, New Jersey Governor CHRIS CHRISTIE and Newark Mayor CORY BOOKER you new how Mark Zuckerberg stole facebook you got the emails on how he stole facebook.
In his book The Facebook Effect, David Kirkpatrick outlines the story of how Thiel came to make his investment: [DAVID KIRKPATRICK GOT THE EMAILS ON HOW ZUCKERBERG STOLE FACEBOOK]former Napster and Plaxo employee Sean Parker, who at the time had assumed the title of "President"
The reason there is no entry for Leader or McKibben is because Wikipedia is intentionally not telling the truth. funded in 2004 by OMIDYAR NETWORK and REID HOFFMAN (PayPal, LinkedIn, Facebook their was post put on Wikipedia by me about Leader and McKibben but every TIME i did this it was taken down by REID HOFFMAN !!!!
OBAMA STOP STEALING IDEA'S IM NOT YOUR BUTLER WE ARE NOT YOUR BUTLER AND WILL NEVER BE YOUR BUTLER GOT THAT OBAMA!!!!
JOEL SALATIN, author of "Folks, This Ain't Normal" agrees with AFI about our broken justice system.
“This whole litigation climate is destroying innovation because it makes people too afraid to move. If I think you might sue me, I’m going to move much more cautiously in my relationship with you than if I know you won’t sue me. Polyface [Farm] now leases several farms in the area. These are landowners who, for the most part, have approached us and asked us to manage their properties. It allows us to expand to meet our market demand but maintain a decentralized, spread-out production and processing model consistent with our ecological and business values.
CITATION: Salatin, Joel. Folks, This Ain't Normal: A Farmer's Advice for Happier Hens, Healthier People, and a Better World. New York: Center Street, 2011. Print.
How can any innovator rely upon the trustworthiness of the U.S. Patent Office and the Justice Department, after knowing that all the judges held Facebook stock during Leader case?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 455
 §104
 v. 
 v. 
 § 455
 § 104
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.