Considering the reason he hates Gawker so much is because their Valleywag site outed him as gay, that's absolutely true. It's made even sadder by the fact that apparently everyone already knew he was gay so it wasn't much of an outing.
It's more than just that, he's also taken to accusing anyone who points out he didn't invent E-mail as being racist because they can't handle the fact an Indian-American invented it.
In my opinion he's a delusional, insecure, egotistical asshole. I don't know what he was hoping to accomplish, but I can tell you that he's managed to make me have no respect for him whatsoever. If he'd not been such a delusional asshole, I might have respected the fact he created an E-mail program independently. And he can't sue to make me respect him. Respect can't be ordered by a court.
Frankly I suspect he's just so stuck on himself that he really believes he did invent E-mail. Which doesn't say much about his grip on reality.
And when it comes to Google, if you have a Google account, don't search while logged in. I access my Gmail in a portable Firefox instance, and my main browser (where I do all my searching) isn't logged in at all. So my Google searches aren't being associated with my Google account. I also use Firefox on my phone instead of Chrome, but that's more so I can adblock on mobile.
I can confirm, had them try this twice on my phone and then I had to deal with it on mom's and dad's phones. It's presented as no big deal, just something you should accept so you'll have better service. They also make it difficult to figure out how to reject it. If I'm remembering it correctly, you have to select "more information", and after that you can finally decline. (Also, you have to select more information to even find out what it changes.)
Google has done this change extremely underhandedly. I have no doubts it was done that way on purpose. I just don't see how you could get it so confusing and tricky without actively trying to make it that way.
If Univision is that scared of getting sued over news articles, they should get out of the news business entirely. That's the only way they can eliminate that particular risk. Also, they shouldn't have bought the Gawker Media sites. That's sort of like killing someone on a busy street and hoping no one saw you.
Well there's no lawyer involved (at least via the papers). They were filed by a pro se litigant, and the defendant is also pro se. I would have thought such lawsuits where BOTH parties are pro se would be unusual enough for the judge to give it extra scrutiny. But maybe such lawsuits are more common than I think.
Now there might be a shady lawyer doing this behind the scenes, but I'd be willing to bet it really was done by that Brad Smith (and he's lying to cover it up) or by a scummy reputation management company, either with or without Smith's knowledge. (I give that one 50/50 odds, both seem equally likely.) Either way I doubt a real lawyer drew up the fraudulent papers and filed them.
Still doesn't let Smith off the hook for hiring a scummy reputation management company.
It's still a dangerous game the DOJ is playing. If they go after someone who can put up a fight to the end, they risk setting precedent against their pet theories. Then they can't go after sites in the future like that.
Basically the DOJ (and the MPAA/RIAA) might win the battle (taking down KAT) but lose the war. (No longer able to take down any torrent site because of legal precedent.)
Apparently the police are uninterested, and/or unwilling, to learn from the past. Pushing for more militarization, and treating non-police like the enemy more often, is going to result in more attacks on cops.
I guess it's just too damned hard to do things like treat people with respect. Shooting them's easier and (for many cops) more fun.
While I respect you, and trust you that this is a most unusual case, I'm bothered by the fact the court record was not only sealed but removed. Was this done at the request of the person who filed the lawsuits in question? If so, I don't think they've learned anything, they're still abusing the courts.
In searching to find the case Starke referenced, I discovered that's not how it works. Often you have to sue the child, and win, to get the child's parent's home owners insurance to cover the claim. (If it happened at their home.) And if you win, it's the insurance company that has to pay the judgement, not the child's parents.
This seems all kinds of fucked up, but it's not too surprising. Insurance companies can be pretty scummy. I wouldn't be surprised if they require this at times in the hopes the injured party won't be willing to file the lawsuit. After all, that saves the insurance company money.
The cops have been treating the public like the enemy for years and years now. That started after a cop being shot after he pulled someone over. Despite that being an isolated incident, they decided to treat it like a declaration of war and started training all cops to treat anyone they deal with as an enemy.
Eventually this was always going to backfire on them. If you treat people like the enemy, they start treating you as the enemy too. The army learned this the hard way in Iraq. They changed their tactics and it paid off with fewer deaths. The cops continue to do the stuff the army learned was a great way to get more soldiers killed.
If anyone's actually surprised that some isolated individuals are now acting like the enemy the police considers them, they haven't paid any attention to recent history. (Which, sadly, probably includes most cops.) There's still time for the cops to change. If they do it won't continue to get worse. But if they don't, there's probably going to be more and more shootings both by cops and of cops. I don't think anyone wants it to come to that.
The CBP probably will be just fine in court, but the doctor... he's likely in deep shit. Only an x-ray was ordered, the doctor failed to have that done, then did the physical exams. I'm sure the CBP encouraged him to do this, but legally? They're going to claim the doctor did it on his own initiative. He's wide open to both malpractice and civil lawsuits.
The doctor's malpractice insurance is unlikely to cover this either. The exams were unnecessary medically, not even ordered by anyone (at least via paper trail), and malpractice insurance doesn't cover cases like that. There's a very good chance he could end up losing his license to practice medicine over this even.
Too bad probably not a damn thing will happen to the CBP agent.
When my grandfather died, Mom inherited his house. He'd had cable TV there for a long time, but Comcast still required a tech to come out to setup cable TV/Internet/phone for my parents. Even though the house was already wired up for cable. At least in that case they went ahead and ran a new drop while they were at it, and we took the opportunity to have them put a second cable in on the other side of the house, mostly because the computers are on that end of the house.
Having a tech come to activate TV/Internet/Phone is standard operating procedure for Comcast and houses now. The difference probably is that you're in an apartment.