Legal Issues

by Mike Masnick


Filed Under:
frivolous lawsuits, handwritten

Companies:
google



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.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Ajax 4Hire, 15 Feb 2008 @ 12:25pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Trojan John, 15 Feb 2008 @ 12:29pm

    See, if you made people pay to sue someone, you would get much fewer frivolous lawsuits.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dharmazi, 15 Feb 2008 @ 12:31pm

    Dylan Stephen Jayne, Please finish your Elementary School!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2008 @ 12:34pm

    I could never think up or expect anyone to believe my alligators.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Willton, 15 Feb 2008 @ 12:42pm

    Well,

    at least he's got the form of a legal complaint down. Some people can't even do that.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Jeremy Boyd, 15 Feb 2008 @ 1:53pm

    Re: #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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Chronno S. Trigger, 15 Feb 2008 @ 2:25pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Willton, 15 Feb 2008 @ 2:38pm

        Re: 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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Willton, 15 Feb 2008 @ 2:39pm

        Re: 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.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael Schmitt, 15 Feb 2008 @ 2:26pm

    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!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Michael Schmitt, 15 Feb 2008 @ 2:26pm

    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!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Willton, 15 Feb 2008 @ 2:43pm

      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.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    x, 15 Feb 2008 @ 2:35pm

    hmm

    how does a 9 digit number spell a 6 letter word?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dr. Slobber, 16 Feb 2008 @ 3:57pm

    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.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Copying Is Not Theft
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.