Leader.com Reviews

Based on checking the website, Leader.com presents itself not as a typical product or service review site, but rather as a platform deeply entrenched in a narrative surrounding intellectual property, alleged government corruption, and free speech advocacy, particularly centered around the invention of social networking technology.

The content heavily emphasizes the claims of Leader Technologies regarding the theft and weaponization of their inventions, specifically by entities like Facebook, the CIA, and various government departments.

This site appears to be a focal point for disseminating information, legal documents, and historical analysis related to these claims, aiming to garner public support for their cause.

The site is less about offering conventional reviews of a product or service, and more about reviewing a complex legal and historical dispute from the perspective of Leader Technologies and its chairman, Michael McKibben.

It functions as a public record and advocacy platform, detailing a long-standing battle for recognition and compensation for what they assert was the misappropriation of their social networking innovations.

The primary focus is on exposing alleged misconduct by powerful institutions and advocating for property rights and free speech, rather than providing consumer-oriented evaluations of goods or services.

Find detailed reviews on Trustpilot, Reddit, and BBB.org, for software products you can also check Producthunt.

IMPORTANT: We have not personally tested this company’s services. This review is based solely on information provided by the company on their website. For independent, verified user experiences, please refer to trusted sources such as Trustpilot, Reddit, and BBB.org.

Understanding Leader.com’s Core Assertions

Leader.com is primarily a platform dedicated to articulating and advocating for the claims of Leader Technologies, Inc., regarding the alleged theft and weaponization of their social networking inventions.

The site functions as a repository of information, legal documents, and journalistic pieces that support their narrative of a decades-long struggle against powerful entities.

The Alleged Theft of Social Networking Technology

At the heart of Leader.com’s narrative is the assertion that Leader Technologies developed foundational social networking technology, which was subsequently stolen and weaponized by various government agencies and corporations.

This claim is central to understanding the entire website’s purpose.

• Pioneering Innovations: Leader Technologies claims to have patented key elements of modern social networking platforms, specifically U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 for “Digital Leaderboard™,” issued on November 21, 2006. They argue this patent laid the groundwork for how information is structured and shared on the internet in a Web 2.0 environment.
• Targeted Misappropriation: The website alleges that the U.S. federal government, through entities like the Department of Defense Office of Net Assessment, the CIA via BlackRock and Vanguard, and the IBM Eclipse Foundation, orchestrated the theft of these inventions. They specifically name individuals like Major General James E. Freeze US Army, ret. and Leader’s former patent attorney James P. Chandler, III, as facilitators of this alleged theft.
• Weaponization Claim: A critical and disturbing aspect of their claim is the “weaponization” of these stolen inventions. Leader.com posits that the technology was used for “continuous war making and enrichment of its fascist insider military-industrial corporations,” suggesting a broader, more sinister purpose beyond mere intellectual property infringement. This transforms their claim from a simple patent dispute into a narrative of national security implications and profound ethical breaches.

The “Leader v. Facebook” Judicial Corruption Scandal

A significant portion of Leader.com’s content revolves around the legal battle between Leader Technologies and Facebook, which they characterize as a prime example of judicial corruption.

This case serves as a central pillar of their overall argument regarding systemic misconduct.

• The Lawsuit: Leader Technologies sued Facebook, alleging patent infringement. While specific details of the initial suit are less prominent on the homepage, the outcome and the alleged circumstances surrounding it are heavily emphasized.
• Allegations of Judicial Misconduct: Leader.com vehemently asserts that the judiciary, in collusion with the Obama Administration, actively subverted justice in the “Leader v. Facebook” trial. They cite evidence such as newly-released documents from Hillary Clinton’s email scandal revealing extensive Facebook dealings at the U.S. State Department during the trial period.
• Supreme Court’s Stance: The website notes that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider Leader’s petition for a Writ of Certiorari on January 7, 2013, leaving “glaring mistakes of law, abuses of due process and judicial misconduct” unaddressed. This denial is presented as further proof of systemic issues rather than a definitive legal conclusion against their claims.

Leader.com’s Advocacy and Calls to Action

Beyond detailing the alleged injustices, Leader.com actively seeks to mobilize public support and action, framing their fight as a defense of fundamental American property rights and free speech.

They leverage historical quotes and current events to reinforce their message.

The Miller Act Notice

A recurring theme on Leader.com is the “First Amended Miller Act Notice” submitted to President Trump.

This legal maneuver is presented as a direct challenge to the federal government to compensate Leader Technologies for the alleged theft. Phishdeck.com Reviews

• Contract Demand: The Miller Act Notice is characterized as a “contract demand for the U.S. Treasury to pay Leader for the federal government’s 18-year theft of their social networking inventions.” This positions their claim as a matter of contractual obligation and reparations rather than solely a patent infringement case against a private company.
• Protecting Property Rights: Leader.com argues that protecting Leader’s property rights is synonymous with protecting the property rights of all citizens under the Fifth Amendment, linking their specific case to broader constitutional principles. This framing aims to resonate with a wider audience concerned about governmental overreach.
• Call to Patriots: The site explicitly encourages “Patriots” to help get this notice to President Trump, bypassing what they refer to as the “Pilgrims Society / Senior Executive Service SES Praetorian Guard.” This language suggests a conspiratorial element, where powerful, clandestine groups are actively obstructing justice.

Free Speech and Censorship Concerns

A significant and increasingly prominent issue highlighted by Leader.com is what they perceive as systematic censorship aimed at stifling their message and free speech generally.

The “Censorship Notice” at the top of their homepage is a direct testament to this concern.

• ISP Blackout: The “Censorship Notice” details an incident on October 7, 2020, where their site was globally blocked from access. They attribute this to their Internet service provider ISP, Jumpline, Inc., now owned by Deluxe Corporation, which they allege is controlled by BlackRock and Vanguard entities they link to the CIA.
• “Modus Operandi for Global Communist Censorship”: Leader.com labels this incident as the “new modus operandi for the British Pilgrims Society’s global communist censorship,” where ISPs feign “technical problems” to silence dissent. This suggests a coordinated effort to suppress information, aligning with broader narratives of digital authoritarianism.
• Seeking Alternatives: They promote a “real Free Speech solution The Miller Act Notice,” implying that their legal challenge is not just about financial compensation but also about safeguarding open discourse in the face of alleged corporate and governmental control over information. This speaks to a growing concern among certain segments of the population regarding internet freedom.

The Role of “American Intelligence Media” and “Americans for Innovation”

Leader.com frequently references “American Intelligence Media” AIM and “Americans for Innovation” AFI as key allies and sources of supporting evidence for their claims.

These organizations appear to be instrumental in disseminating Leader Technologies’ narrative.

Collaborative Investigative Journalism

Leader.com positions AIM and AFI as vital partners in their quest for truth and justice, suggesting a collaborative effort to expose alleged corruption and bring information to light that they believe mainstream media overlooks or suppresses.

• “Global Investigator Conclave”: The site mentions that AIM’s “global investigator conclave has embraced Leader’s cause,” bringing together “Patriot experts, researchers, academics, politicians, and PhDs from all over the world” to investigate and support Leader Technologies’ efforts. This frames their narrative as a well-researched and widely supported truth.
• “Unprecedented Timeline of Indictable Evidence”: AFI is credited with preparing an “unprecedented timeline of indictable evidence with full citations that details the endemic global corruption exposed by the Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal.” This timeline is presented as a thorough resource for “patriot citizens, alt-media, judges, attorney, politicians and other researchers.”
• Dissemination of Information: Both AIM and AFI appear to function as primary channels for the dissemination of Leader Technologies’ legal arguments, research findings, and calls to action. They likely serve as the journalistic and activist arms supporting the Leader.com platform.

Broader Societal Implications

The involvement of these groups underscores Leader.com’s attempt to connect its specific legal battle to larger societal issues, such as government transparency, corporate power, and the integrity of democratic institutions.

• “Rabbit Hole in History”: Michael McKibben’s message on November 21, 2018, speaks of the “Leader v. Facebook judicial corruption scandal” uncovering a “rabbit hole in history that will rewrite the history books on the demonic alliance among newspapers, media, intelligence, propaganda, politics, judges, law and banking, otherwise known as the Pilgrims Society.” This grandiose claim suggests a deep-seated conspiracy affecting multiple facets of society.
• Founding Fathers’ Perspective: The site invokes historical figures like John Adams, quoting him on the sacredness of property rights and warning against anarchy and tyranny if such rights are violated. This rhetorical device attempts to ground their contemporary claims in foundational American principles, appealing to a sense of historical continuity and patriotic duty.
• Citizen Call to Action: By inviting “Citizens” to action and providing resources like the “timeline of evidence,” Leader.com aims to empower individuals to become active participants in their cause, framing it as a fight for fundamental liberties.

Historical Context and Testimonials

Leader.com also leverages historical context and past endorsements to bolster its credibility and demonstrate the long-standing nature of Leader Technologies’ work and impact.

This section highlights earlier successes and recognition.

Pre-Patent Endorsements and Applications

Before the widely publicized “theft” allegations, Leader Technologies appears to have been involved in various health and safety initiatives, garnering endorsements from notable figures and organizations.

• William Shatner’s Heartbeat of America TV: On April 22, 2008, “Heartbeat TV series ‘Keeping America Strong’” a program established after 9/11 to highlight American entrepreneurs endorsed Leader Technologies. Michael McKibben and Jim Sobwick were interviewed for national syndication, providing a public platform for their work.
• Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina Response: Andy Kopplin, former Chief of Staff for Governor Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, sent a thank-you note on March 12, 2008, acknowledging Leader’s “life saving and recovery communications services after Hurricane Katrina had swamped much of the State’s infrastructure.” This is presented as a significant real-world application of Leader’s technology during a major national disaster, showcasing its efficacy in critical situations. The site claims Leader supported most federal, state, and local officials and provided vital life-saving communications when over one million phone lines stopped working.
• Campus Alerting: The site references the future of campus alerting, emphasizing that “timely & informative alerts can save lives, unify response, stop rumors, prevent panic, reassure, avoid missteps, provide leadership and instruction.” This further illustrates Leader’s focus on critical communication infrastructure.

The “Predicting the Unpredictable” Narrative

The lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina are highlighted as a testament to Leader Technologies’ foresight and practical application in disaster management. Pimeyes.com Reviews

This serves to establish their prior contributions and technical expertise.

• Lessons from Katrina: The section “Predicting the Unpredictable” specifically points to “Lessons learned from Leader’s support of the State of Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina disaster response communications – the largest natural disaster in the history of the United States.” This implies that their systems provided unique value in an unprecedented crisis.
• Expertise in Emergency Communications: By showcasing their involvement in such a high-stakes scenario, Leader.com aims to demonstrate that Leader Technologies was not merely a theoretical innovator but a practical solution provider with a proven track record in critical communications infrastructure. This background attempts to lend weight to their subsequent claims of patent theft.

The Alleged Conspiratorial Network

A central theme on Leader.com, which elevates its narrative beyond a simple patent dispute, is the intricate web of alleged conspirators responsible for the theft and weaponization of their technology.

This involves a variety of powerful organizations and individuals.

The British Pilgrims Society

This organization is frequently cited as the overarching orchestrator behind the alleged intellectual property theft and subsequent censorship.

Leader.com positions them as a secretive, powerful force.

• Global Communist Censorship: The “Censorship Notice” directly implicates the “British Pilgrims Society’s global communist censorship” as the force behind the site’s temporary blockage. This ties the group to efforts to control information flow and suppress dissenting voices.
• Theft and Weaponization: The society is accused of stealing and weaponizing inventions “for continuous war making and enrichment of its fascist insider military-industrial corporations.” This broad accusation suggests a profound, malevolent agenda underlying their actions.
• Control over Institutions: Leader.com implies the Pilgrims Society exerts control over numerous institutions, including “Babylonian Radhanite merchant-bankers HSBC, JPMorgan, BlackRock, Vanguard, IBM Eclipse Foundation, DARPA, DOJ, DOC, and the White House.” This portrays a deep and pervasive influence across financial, technological, governmental, and military sectors.

The Role of Investment Firms BlackRock, Vanguard, LSV

Leader.com meticulously traces the ownership of their former ISP, Jumpline, Inc., to major investment firms, which they then link to the alleged conspiratorial network.

This attempt to connect financial entities to the censorship adds another layer to their narrative.

• Ownership Structure: Jumpline, Inc., the ISP that allegedly blocked their site, was acquired by Deluxe Corporation, which Leader.com states is owned by BlackRock, Vanguard, and LSV.
• CIA Connection: Crucially, Leader.com explicitly labels BlackRock and Vanguard as “C.I.A.” entities. LSV is described as being heavily financed by the CIA, composed of academics from Harvard, U-of-Chicago, and U-of-Illinois Econ. Profs. Lakonishok, Shleifer, Vishny. This direct accusation of CIA involvement through investment firms suggests a concerted effort to control digital infrastructure for covert purposes.
• Financial Leverage: By linking these investment giants to the alleged censorship, Leader.com posits that financial powerhouses are being used as instruments of control and suppression, demonstrating a complex, multi-faceted conspiracy.

Government Agencies and Officials

Beyond the Pilgrims Society and investment firms, specific U.S.

Government agencies and individuals are named as active participants in the alleged scheme.

• Department of Defense Office of Net Assessment: Andrew W. Marshall and the Department of Defense Office of Net Assessment are implicated in orchestrating the theft of Leader’s social networking inventions. This suggests a strategic, high-level government operation.
• IBM Eclipse Foundation: The IBM Eclipse Foundation is described as having “orchestrated the theft and weaponization of Leader Technologies’ invention of social networking.” This brings a major technology corporation into the alleged conspiratorial fold.
• Major General James E. Freeze US Army, ret. and James P. Chandler, III: These individuals are singled out as directly facilitating the theft. Chandler, Leader’s former patent attorney, is specifically accused of betraying their trust. This highlights a breach of professional ethics as part of the broader conspiracy.
• Obama Administration and Judiciary: The site directly accuses the Obama Administration and the Judiciary of collusion to “subvert justice in Leader v. Facebook,” citing Hillary Clinton’s email scandal as hard proof. This suggests political interference in the legal process.

Implications for Internet Freedom and Property Rights

Leader.com frames its entire struggle as a critical battle for fundamental rights, arguing that the alleged theft and censorship have profound implications for everyone’s digital liberties and property protections. Wildpoint.com Reviews

The “Digital Leaderboard™” and Internet Infrastructure

The core of Leader Technologies’ patent claims, the “Digital Leaderboard™,” is presented as a foundational element of how the internet functions today, making its alleged theft a matter of public concern.

• Streamlining Internet Communications: U.S. Patent No. 7,139,761 “promises to streamline Internet communications with Web 2.0 platform infrastructure.” This suggests that Leader Technologies’ innovation was not merely a minor tweak but a significant contribution to the architecture of the modern web.
• Impact on Web 2.0: By asserting that Facebook is built on technology stolen from them, Leader.com implies that a major cornerstone of the internet’s current social and interactive capabilities originates from their uncompensated innovations. This narrative aims to highlight the scale of the alleged injustice.
• “Hijacking the Internet”: The “Crimeline” section, “People you trusted are now hijacking the Internet,” directly states that the ongoing corruption exposed by the Leader v. Facebook scandal impacts the fundamental nature and control of the internet itself. This elevates the dispute from a private legal matter to a global concern about digital governance.

Protecting Property Rights and Free Speech

• Fifth Amendment Protection: Leader.com explicitly connects its fight to the Fifth Amendment, stating that “To protect Leader’s property is to protect your property from illegal search and seizure too.” This aims to make the average citizen feel directly invested in the outcome of Leader’s legal battles.
• “Free Speech Seems to Be Deluxe’s C.I.A. Censorship Target”: The censorship notice directly ties the alleged actions of the ISP to an attack on free speech. This positions Leader.com as a frontline defender against what they perceive as systematic efforts to silence dissenting voices.
• Warning from Founding Fathers: By quoting John Adams on the dangers of undermining property rights leading to “anarchy and tyranny,” Leader.com reinforces the idea that the alleged confiscation of their invention is a direct threat to the bedrock principles of American society. They conclude that “the time about which John Adams warned is upon us,” implying an urgent crisis.

Criticisms and Counterarguments Implicitly Addressed by Leader.com’s Stance

While Leader.com presents a cohesive and detailed narrative from its perspective, it’s important to acknowledge as the site implicitly does by its comprehensive rebuttals that legal disputes often have multiple interpretations and counterarguments.

Leader.com’s content is designed to preemptively address or dismiss these.

Dismissal of Legal Outcomes

Leader.com does not shy away from discussing adverse legal outcomes, but it frames them as evidence of corruption rather than a lack of merit in their claims.

• Supreme Court Denial as “Judicial Misconduct”: The U.S. Supreme Court’s waiver of Leader’s petition is explicitly called out as an instance where “the glaring mistakes of law, abuses of due process and judicial misconduct in this case remain unaddressed.” This proactive framing dismisses the legal finality of the decision and reinterprets it as proof of systemic failure.
• “Hard Proof of Collusion”: Rather than accepting judicial rulings, Leader.com searches for and presents external evidence like Hillary Clinton’s emails as “hard proof” of collusion that actively subverted justice. This suggests a belief that the truth lies outside conventional legal channels.

The Nature of “Proof” and “Evidence”

The site relies heavily on its “unprecedented timeline of indictable evidence with full citations,” suggesting a meticulous presentation of facts.

However, the interpretation of these facts is deeply intertwined with their specific narrative.

• “Crimeline” as Indictable Evidence: The timeline prepared by Americans for Innovation is presented as containing “indictable evidence,” implying that it meets a legal standard for prosecution. However, this is their assertion, not a judicial finding.
• Conspiratorial Framing: The repeated invocation of the “Pilgrims Society,” “CIA,” and “global communist censorship” frames the entire situation within a conspiratorial paradigm. While the site presents specific documents and events, the connections drawn between them are often based on a pre-existing theory of a hidden, powerful network. This approach is common in advocacy journalism where a specific worldview guides the interpretation of events.

Current Status and Future Outlook Based on Website Content

Leader.com continues to function as an active platform for advocacy, seeking to keep its claims in the public eye and gather support for its ongoing efforts.

Continued Legal and Public Pressure

Despite past legal setbacks, Leader.com and its allies remain committed to pursuing their claims through various avenues, emphasizing persistence as a core strategy.

• Ongoing Investigation: The site notes that the “ongoing investigation at Americans for Innovation” can still be followed, indicating that the collection and presentation of “evidence” is a continuous process.
• Call for Citizen Action: The persistent calls to “Patriots” to help disseminate the Miller Act Notice to President Trump demonstrate a continued reliance on public pressure and direct appeals to government officials outside of standard judicial channels.
• Educational Mission: Michael McKibben’s video message from November 21, 2018, about rewriting history books suggests an educational mission to fundamentally alter public understanding of past events, positioning Leader.com as a source of alternative historical truth.

The Battle for Information Control

The “Censorship Notice” and the continuous emphasis on free speech suggest that Leader.com views its existence and continued operation as part of a larger struggle against information control and suppression.

• Debugging Broken Links: The mention of “NUMEROUS LINKS WERE BROKEN WHICH WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DEBUGGING” after the alleged censorship incident underscores the practical challenges faced by platforms perceived as dissenting. This highlights the vulnerabilities of online presence when facing alleged digital attacks.

In essence, Leader.com is not a typical review site but rather a detailed, passionate, and sometimes conspiratorial account of a company’s struggle to claim recognition and compensation for what it believes was a fundamental technological innovation allegedly stolen and misused by powerful, shadowy entities. Oneclip.com Reviews

It’s a platform for advocacy, historical revisionism, and a call to action for those who believe in defending property rights and free speech against perceived governmental and corporate overreach.

The site’s content provides a singular, compelling narrative from the perspective of Leader Technologies, inviting readers to consider their version of events and join their cause.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Leader.com primarily about?

Leader.com is primarily about detailing the claims of Leader Technologies, Inc.

Regarding the alleged theft and weaponization of their social networking inventions by powerful entities including Facebook, government agencies like the CIA and DoD, and various financial institutions.

It functions as an advocacy platform and a repository for related legal and historical documents.

Does Leader.com review products or services?

No, Leader.com does not review consumer products or services in the traditional sense.

Its focus is on reviewing and exposing what it describes as a complex legal and historical dispute concerning intellectual property theft, judicial corruption, and censorship, all centered around Leader Technologies’ patented innovations.

Who is Michael McKibben, and what is his role?

Michael McKibben is the chairman and inventor for Leader Technologies.

He is central to the narrative on Leader.com, providing video explanations, speaking at conferences, and spearheading the efforts to expose the alleged theft of their social networking inventions and to pursue compensation.

What is the “Digital Leaderboard™” patent?

The “Digital Leaderboard™” is U.S. Patent No. Notifyxf.com Reviews

7,139,761, issued to Leader Technologies on November 21, 2006. Leader.com claims this patent represents their invention of foundational social networking technology designed to streamline Internet communications with Web 2.0 platform infrastructure.

What are the main allegations in the “Leader v. Facebook” case?

Leader.com alleges that Leader Technologies sued Facebook for patent infringement, but the case was marred by judicial misconduct and collusion between the judiciary and the Obama Administration, resulting in Facebook benefiting from stolen technology without proper legal recourse for Leader Technologies.

What is the “Miller Act Notice” mentioned on Leader.com?

The “First Amended Miller Act Notice” is a legal demand sent by Leader Technologies to President Trump.

It is characterized as a contract demand for the U.S.

Treasury to compensate Leader for the federal government’s alleged 18-year theft of their social networking inventions.

Why does Leader.com mention censorship?

Leader.com includes a “Censorship Notice” detailing an incident where their site was blocked globally. They attribute this to their ISP, Jumpline, Inc.

now owned by Deluxe Corporation, which they link to BlackRock and Vanguard allegedly CIA-controlled entities, characterizing it as part of a “global communist censorship” orchestrated by the British Pilgrims Society.

What is the “British Pilgrims Society” in Leader.com’s narrative?

In Leader.com’s narrative, the British Pilgrims Society is portrayed as a powerful, secretive organization that orchestrates the theft and weaponization of inventions, including Leader’s, for continuous war-making and the enrichment of “fascist insider military-industrial corporations.” They are depicted as controlling various influential institutions.

How does Leader.com connect investment firms like BlackRock and Vanguard to their claims?

Leader.com states that their former ISP, Jumpline, Inc., is now owned by Deluxe Corporation, which in turn is owned by BlackRock, Vanguard, and LSV.

They explicitly label BlackRock and Vanguard as “C.I.A.” entities and LSV as heavily financed by the CIA, suggesting these firms are instruments in a broader conspiratorial network aimed at censorship and control. Candor.com Reviews

What role do “American Intelligence Media” and “Americans for Innovation” play?

American Intelligence Media AIM and Americans for Innovation AFI are presented as key allies and investigative partners of Leader Technologies.

AIM is described as having a “global investigator conclave” supporting Leader’s cause, while AFI is credited with preparing an “unprecedented timeline of indictable evidence” detailing alleged corruption.

Does Leader.com provide evidence for its claims?

Yes, Leader.com asserts it provides evidence, primarily through an “unprecedented timeline of indictable evidence with full citations” prepared by Americans for Innovation.

It also points to specific documents like Hillary Clinton’s emails as “hard proof” of collusion.

How does Leader.com relate its fight to broader issues of property rights and free speech?

Leader.com consistently frames its specific legal battle as a critical fight for fundamental American property rights under the Fifth Amendment and free speech.

They argue that protecting their property is akin to protecting everyone’s property and that the alleged censorship directly attacks free expression.

Has Leader Technologies had any past successes or endorsements?

Yes, before the “theft” allegations, Leader Technologies received endorsements and was involved in significant projects.

These include the Ohio School Boards Association endorsing “Leader Alert®” and William Shatner’s Heartbeat of America TV endorsing Leader.

Crucially, they provided “life saving and recovery communications services” after Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana.

What is the significance of Hurricane Katrina in Leader.com’s history?

Leader.com highlights Leader Technologies’ support for the State of Louisiana’s Hurricane Katrina disaster response as a demonstration of their technology’s real-world efficacy and their expertise in critical communications, particularly when over a million phone lines failed. Hustlr.com Reviews

This is presented as “the largest natural disaster in the history of the United States” where their system was vital.

Why did the U.S. Supreme Court decline Leader’s petition?

Leader.com states that the U.S.

Supreme Court “waived off without comment” Leader’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari on January 7, 2013. The site frames this denial as leaving “glaring mistakes of law, abuses of due process and judicial misconduct” unaddressed, implying the Supreme Court failed to correct injustices rather than definitively ruling against Leader’s claims.

What is the “Crimeline” mentioned on Leader.com?

The “Crimeline” is described as an “unprecedented timeline of indictable evidence with full citations” prepared by Americans for Innovation.

It details “the endemic global corruption exposed by the Leader v.

Facebook judicial corruption scandal,” suggesting a comprehensive account of alleged wrongdoing.

Does Leader.com suggest a conspiracy beyond just patent theft?

Yes, Leader.com suggests a broad, multi-layered conspiracy involving government agencies CIA, DoD, major corporations IBM Eclipse Foundation, Facebook, investment firms BlackRock, Vanguard, and a secret society British Pilgrims Society, all allegedly working together to steal and weaponize technology and control information.

What is the overall tone and purpose of the Leader.com website?

The overall tone of Leader.com is one of deep concern, urgent advocacy, and righteous indignation.

Its purpose is to inform visitors about the alleged injustices faced by Leader Technologies, to expose a perceived global conspiracy, and to enlist public support for their cause, which they frame as a fight for fundamental liberties.

How does Leader.com portray the current state of internet freedom?

Leader.com portrays internet freedom as being under severe threat due to the alleged actions of powerful entities. Zorbi.com Reviews

Their “Censorship Notice” and continuous focus on the “hijacking of the Internet” suggest that they believe free speech online is being systematically suppressed and controlled.

Is Leader.com still active in pursuing its claims?

Yes, based on the frequent updates, calls to action, and mentions of ongoing investigations, Leader.com appears to be an active platform continuously pursuing its claims and seeking to disseminate its narrative to a wider audience.