From Acceptable-liberties-hate-me-for-my-narrow-views Deep
A Accusation [PDF] It has been rejected by Google in advertising practices and search engine rankings. The charges are usually made before the charges are quickly relegated to the most popular cause of action. first, There’s Rico. Second, the plaintiff says Rico and everything that goes with it is the result of Google Anti-Semitism.
Here is the most consistent part of the charges:
Plaintiff manages a website https://seniorcare.care/ (“Website”) that aims to connect caregivers and assistants with seniors and families from 2014 to 2019. Defendant communicated with Plaintiff by email, chat room, and blog between 2016 and 2018, in order for Plaintiff to make changes to the Website in accordance with Defendant’s standards and to facilitate Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s costly and costly website. .. For example, plaintiff has made the website “mobile-friendly”, enhanced the security of the website, created social media accounts, removed certain ads and pop-up content. Plaintiff made these changes on the basis of the promise that they would improve the search results for the website in Google search terms.
That is the reasonable part of the complaint. The next two sentences indicate where this will lead.
The defendant, however, said: “He had a black record[ed]The Google search algorithm has deliberately distorted the plaintiff and the organization’s search results. Defendant did this because the conservatives are the plaintiff’s plaintiff and owner.
As a result, a lawsuit was filed in May last year. In addition to the plaintiff’s alleged anti-discrimination bias, RICO lists Florida’s RICO analog and the usual horrific interference. Oh, and there is a demand for $ 90,000,000 in damages. That or Google agrees to disassemble itself. You know, rational questions.
And here’s the RICO section:
These bodies and individuals have worked “for the common good” to highlight and censor conservatives and to harm the businesses run by conservatives..
Defendant engaged in at least two wire frauds to achieve this goal.
Rico’s request failed for a very simple reason: Conspiracy requires more than one “conspiracy.” Otherwise there is no conspiracy.
Plaintiff did not misrepresent the existence of two separate entities. Since Plaintiff argues that he was part of an organization with Fidel, Ink, and YouTube, there is no fact that Plaintiff claims that these related entities are different from a corporate “person.” The plaintiff did not know any of these individuals until the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was part of an organization with the plaintiffs, their agents or employees or with the alphabet, EBC or YouTube officers, agents or employees. There are facts that support the conclusion that the individuals did not work within the official capacity of their employers.
Although the court agreed that many employees of various enterprises under the umbrella were actually “conspirators”, the plaintiff did not provide any evidence that these employees were conspiring against the business and the website because the owner of the website was conservative. .
The plaintiff alleges that despite the fact that the plaintiffs had a common purpose to accuse and censor conservatives and cause harm to businesses run by conservatives, the plaintiff alleges that each member shared a common purpose.
And the “fraud” of RICO allegations is no better. After a long and lengthy appeal, the court found no evidence to support the allegations or the plaintiff’s conclusions.
It is better to understand from the Court’s amended complaint that the plaintiff’s “fraudulent scheme” is a defense plan to suppress conservative views when it seeks neutrality. See, for example, DE 19 ¶ 18 (“Google has defrauded hundreds, perhaps millions of conservatives, in its efforts to discriminate and clear conservatives from Google platforms.”); ID ¶ 43 (“Makes Google Search look like Lincoln in a fraudulent way.”). Thus, the plaintiff alleges that the plaintiff’s wired communications are email, chat, and blog communication with the plaintiff regarding how the defendant’s website relates to defendant rankings and optimizes the number of visits. See, ID. ¶ 54 (“Google and its agents have been in contact with Lincoln in the middle of the business hundreds of times through wires (Google blogs / chat rooms).”) Plaintiffs have not been charged in connection with the alleged use of the wiring harness to “execute” or defraud artifacts. That is, the plaintiff did not explain what the defendant’s relationship with the website was intended to suppress conservative views.
If those connections were not fraudulent, there would be no wire fraud. In order for relationships to be fraudulent, they must be deceptive. It is unlikely that Google will ever inform the plaintiff of anything that does not happen.
Plaintiff’s Fraud Claim If, at least in part, the defendant does not disclose certain information to the plaintiff. See, for example, DE 19 ¶ 15 (“Google hides from Lincoln by fraudulently intending to infringe on Lincoln’s first amendment rights and interfere with Lincoln’s business”); ID ¶ 26 (“Google denies that Lincoln will never get any search results, no matter what Lincoln does.”); ID ¶ 39 (“Hidden Institutional Discrimination, Including Google Lincoln”); ID ¶ 62 (“In many of Google’s interactions with Lincoln, Google has hidden the fact that it discriminates against conservatives and conducts searches fraudulently.)
The risk of losing a job is far greater than the cost of living. That also applies to serious interference charges. There was no agreement between Google and the plaintiff. If there is no contract or agreement to intervene, there is no basis for interference.
Google argues that the first amendment protects “editorial judgments from search results,” even though the allegations of discrimination are true. The plaintiff’s response was basically, “No, no.” Again, it is not enough to continue that accusation.
Plaintiff does not provide a meaningful response to Defendant’s arguments, does not provide initial amendment analysis, or does not address this lawsuit. Instead, the plaintiff simply stated: “The first amendment does not anticipate the Google fraud that led Lincoln to change its website. Fraud and fraud are not ‘editorial justice’. ”
The court ruled that the case was a “case in point” and that each count would have accepted all the charges in the proceedings, and that the final count would be a repeat of the appeal. This makes it impossible for the court to determine what actions are related to this action, which makes everything inconsistent. The appeal was rejected, but without prejudice. The plaintiff has one more chance of resolving the complaint at one point-by-point basis.
While this may be best done in court, there is a good chance that the outcome will change. What the court can present shows that the charges are weak, conclusive, and slightly supportive of the plaintiff’s prejudice.
Thanks for reading this textbook post. We truly appreciate that you are giving us so much time in this world that you are competing for everything. We work hard every day to deliver quality content to our community.
Texan is one of the few truly independent media outlets left. We do not have a large corporation behind us, and at a time when advertisers are increasingly interested in sponsoring small independent sites – especially as a report like ours refuses to draw attention to the report, we rely heavily on our community to support us. And analysis.
While other websites use wall-to-wall, subscription requirements, and increasingly disruptive ads, we have always kept the technology open and accessible to all. But to continue, We need your support. From direct donations to special subscriptions and good merchandise – and we offer a variety of ways to help our readers with every little help. thanks.