|
On frivolous American Lawsuits (Google Inside)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| venomX |
| quote: |
Google sued for 'crimes against humanity'
By Cade Metz in San Francisco
Published Thursday 20th September 2007 23:51 GMT
A Pennsylvania crusader has slapped Google with a $5bn lawsuit, claiming that the world's largest search engine is endangering his personal safety.
With a suit filed in federal court, Dylan Stephen Jayne insists that the company is guilty of "crimes against humanity" because its name turns up when his social security number is scrambled and turned upside down.
Click here to find out more!
After much study, The Reg can confirm that Jayne's tax payer ID can be juggled to reveal the word Google - if you use your imagination. But we have elected not to publish the number. For obvious reasons.
By calling itself Google, Jayne argues, Google has exposed him to attack by an army of culturally diverse, net-savvy terrorists. "A person regardless of race or religion that wishes to cause acts of terrorism would look for social security numbers that are made readily available on the public use databases," his suit reads.
And he's adamant that if Google claims ignorance, many people could end up dead or buck naked. "The 'I don't know' defense obviously is a waste of money, time, and puts the lives of Americans and illegal aliens at risk of death or serious undress."
Will the suit stand up in court? According to Santa Clara University law professor and tech law blogger (http://blog.ericgoldman.org/) Eric Goldman, who first brought the suit to popular attention, the answer is "no."
But Goldman could be wrong. The court could side with Jayne. After all, the US government has made far more ridiculous decisions in the name of anti-terrorism.
Even if Google comes out on top, Goldman told us, the company will have no choice but to spill some dough on its lawyers. And if it loses? Jayne is asking damages of $5bn.
The other question is where the money will come from. At one point in Jayne's suit - which is handwritten - the defendant is listed as the "Google Internet Search Engine." But in other places, he accuses the "Google Internet Search Engine Founders."
So a $5bn bill could land on Google - or it could land on founding fathers Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Of course, that's pocket change to all three.
We're also worried that additional suits are on the way from Dylan Stephen Jayne. According to his Google complaint, the Philadelphia 76ers play a rather important role in the exposure of his social security number, and The Reg can confirm this is indeed the case - if you use your imagination.
And we might see Jayne sue himself. In filing his Google suit, he provided more than just a social security number. Other exhibits include a driver's license, a bank account number, a bank routing number, a monthly bank statement, a social security statement, and a library card. And all this is now available on the web (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/co.../case_id-69169/).
|
:wtf: This one definitely takes the cake. |
|
|
| idoru |
| quote: | | And we might see Jayne sue himself. In filing his Google suit, he provided more than just a social security number. Other exhibits include a driver's license, a bank account number, a bank routing number, a monthly bank statement, a social security statement, and a library card. And all this is now available on the web (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/co.../case_id-69169/). |
LOL :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| DigitalPhoenix |
| The American Dream: think of the wildest , place it backwards and you win! :wtf: |
|
|
| Zharen |
| I can't even believe you can file a lawsuit this ridiculous. What a total waste of time and money on our judicial system. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zharen
I can't even believe you can file a lawsuit this ridiculous. What a total waste of time and money on our judicial system. |
So true.
Thankfully, it doesn't happen often... |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| You should be able to file any kind of lawsuit you want, but it still has to get approved before it can go to court. |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
You should be able to file any kind of lawsuit you want, but it still has to get approved before it can go to court. |
Then you're just getting a judgement from a select group of people who may or may not consider your case deserving of legal attention, which is essentially what the court system is anyway. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| Then what's the problem :wtf: |
|
|
| Lilith |
Problem is a socially accepted form of wanting either justice, greed or attention which is at the expense of the courts time.
If there is a large enough public backlash about their tax money being spent to make such behaviour unacceptable then it might be dissuaded on at least a social level.
Second problem we have is people who'd be given the job to filter out such 'frivolities' and not placed under undue scrutiny such as you'd find in a court of law. Those people could come from all sorts of religious, corporate, employment, political backgrounds and goodness knows what else that would lead to bias either pro-no in favour of certain appeals.
If you're say, one of these people doing the filtering and you've got some shares on the side with a large corporation, someone comes in to present a legal appeal which would cause economic damage to that company, it would be ignored.
Likewise, someone who's family member might be in government, may be more favourably inclined to let cases through which would be politically damaging to the opposition party and with hold those which could damage their own.
Too hard to regulate. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| I was kind of describing the current system. I believe the judge has to approve on whether the lawsuit is suitable or not. |
|
|
|
|
