Handwritten Lawsuit Against Google Tossed Out Again On Appeal
from the somehow-the-Supreme-Court-seems-unlikely-to-take-this-case dept
Remember the infamous handwritten lawsuit against Google from last year? The one where the guy accused Google of revealing his social security number through a bizarre coded algorithm that involved the Philadelphia 76ers basketball team? Luckily, that lawsuit was quickly thrown out of court, but amazingly, the guy appealed. Eric Goldman now informs us that the appeal has now also been thrown out as the court notes: “Google and its founders are not state actors, and Jayne’s allegation concerning his coded social security number does not constitute a violation of the Constitution or federal law.” Indeed. While the lawsuits have been getting tossed rather quickly, lawsuits like these do still clog the court system and waste plenty of taxpayer dollars. In the meantime, in case you missed it the first time, here’s one of the handwritten filings in the lawsuit.
Filed Under: frivolous lawsuits, handwritten
Companies: google
Comments on “Handwritten Lawsuit Against Google Tossed Out Again On Appeal”
This is why I am doomed to work
till I retire.
I am not stupid enough to think up a lawsuit like this.
I am not naive enough to think that it is someone else fault.
I could never think up or expect anyone to believe my alligations.
See, if you made people pay to sue someone, you would get much fewer frivolous lawsuits.
Dylan Stephen Jayne, Please finish your Elementary School!
I could never think up or expect anyone to believe my alligators.
Well,
at least he’s got the form of a legal complaint down. Some people can’t even do that.
#2
Trojan John, despite whatever benefits may come from restricting the ability to bring suit to those who can pay certain fees, the disadvantages are disproportionately considerable. In this case, Mr. Jayne filed under the “in pauperis” regulations in his county/state/district. Apparently you’d like to remove such an ability.
Even though *this* case is illegitimate, what would we make of legitimate cases under your proposed scheme? The impoverished could never file suit, even when it was justified.
I’d rather pay for illegitimate lawsuits than remove the right of the poor to sue the rich altogether.
Re: #2
How about a counter proposal. Let’s make a fine for frivolous lawsuits. The person who brought it up would have to pay all the court costs and lawyer fees. And their lawyer gets nothing for supporting it.
Re: Re: #2
How about a counter proposal. Let’s make a fine for frivolous lawsuits. The person who brought it up would have to pay all the court costs and lawyer fees. And their lawyer gets nothing for supporting it.
We already do. They are called Rule 11 Sanctions. See Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The problem is that you can’t fine somebody who has no money.
Re: Re: #2
How about a counter proposal. Let’s make a fine for frivolous lawsuits. The person who brought it up would have to pay all the court costs and lawyer fees. And their lawyer gets nothing for supporting it.
We already do. They are called Rule 11 Sanctions. See Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The problem is that you can’t fine somebody who has no money.
He's worried...
… that his SS# is revealed to the world through Google, but by making this lawsuit, he’s given away his mailing address. Now, all we need is for him to write a check and we’ve got his bank account number and we can assume his identity.
He doesn’t need to worry about what Google is giving away as information… HE shouldn’t be giving this information away either!
He's worried...
… that his SS# is revealed to the world through Google, but by making this lawsuit, he’s given away his mailing address. Now, all we need is for him to write a check and we’ve got his bank account number and we can assume his identity.
He doesn’t need to worry about what Google is giving away as information… HE shouldn’t be giving this information away either!
Re: He's worried...
… that his SS# is revealed to the world through Google, but by making this lawsuit, he’s given away his mailing address. Now, all we need is for him to write a check and we’ve got his bank account number and we can assume his identity.
Since he’s filing in forma pauperis (means “in the form of a poor person”), my guess is that he doesn’t have a bank account, or at least doesn’t have anything in one.
hmm
how does a 9 digit number spell a 6 letter word?
Delusional
It’s obvious that this person is delusional. It’s just unfortunate that that the foes of legitimate litigation will use this case to push their agenda along.