backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Sep 29 at 11:07 PM


Page 1 of Jayne's hand-written complaint on Google  (Source: Dylan Stephen Jayne)
Pennsylvania man sues Google founders for $5 billion over secret code in his social security number

Even with all the serious lawsuits surrounding Google every now and then there's still a case that seems just ... off. The latest suit against Google and its founders stems from a man who cared enough to handwrite all 23 pages of his complaint.

One Dylan Stephen Jayne of Pennsylvania filed suit against “Google Internet Search Engine Founders” in Pennsylvania Civil court, seeking the small amount of $5 billion dollars. Jayne claims that his safety is in jeopardy because of Google releasing personal information about him.

Jayne asserts that individuals looking to perform acts of terrorism could obtain his information from Google, making it more likely that he will be detained wrongfully in the future. Jayne’s statement of claim is that, “Dylan Steven Jayne, plaintiff, has a social security number that when the social security number is turned upside down in its entirety it is a scrambled code that does spell the name Google.”

Jayne goes on to state that the United States Department of Justice is heading the investigation into the allegations of crimes against humanity by the Google Search Engine founders and that he was illegally detained as a juvenile in the Milford, Pennsylvania County Court of Common Pleas. Jayne also claims, amongst other things, that he was placed in jail for two-years under misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest and public drunkenness.

Luckily for Google, Jayne is willing to accept the first check in the amount of $250,000 and a second check for the remaining balance. 

Submitted for evidence, Jayne included virtually every piece of his private information; including his credit card, library card and bank overdraft statements.

At the time of publication, "Dylan Stephen Jayne" revealed no hits on Google.  "Dylan Jayne" revealed approximately 200 hits regarding this suit.  In time, Jayne's lawsuit may become a self-fullfilling prophecy -- documents from this case are quickly being circulated through the Internet.  While it may not consistute crimes against humanity, Jayne's personal information is quickly becoming everyone else's business.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: WtF
By theapparition on 9/27/2007 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
You've presented a well thought out reply, and I applaud you. You still miss some basic facts though.

Her entire incident could have been avoided if she didn't decide to open her coffee in a car and pour creamer into it, all while balancing the coffee between her legs. Fault McDonalds all you want, but she precipitated the incident. She should be held far liable than 20% of the blame.

quote:
Last time I went through a drive through I couldn't buy a hot stove and put it in the passenger seat and cook stuff, or use it while I drove my car.

Your trying to take a logical argument and make it look facisious by taking it out of context. Not a great debating style.

quote:
And stoves are dangerous, that is why they are rather tall, so that kids can't reach the burners. And why the controls are typically on the backsplash, so that larger kids can't reach the controls and turn it on.

LOL, this was classic. Do you really believe stoves are tall so kids can't reach the burners? Sorry, but that is too funny. Stoves are the same height as kitchen counters, which themselves are set at a fixed height. That height is universally agreed upon as the proper ergonomic height for a "standing workstation". You'll find the same height for work centers in manufacturing where the worker stands. Correspondingly, all desks are appoximately the same height as well, for the exact same ergonomic reasons. To make matters worse, I hate to break it to you, but any two year old can reach the stovetop. By your suggestion, perhaps we should make them all 4ft tall? Some stoves are even still sold with controls on the face, not backsplash (check your local appliance store).

quote:
So don't say Judges don't work, when the case is heard and decided by common people, including people who like to drink hot coffee.

Judges have far more influence in a court room than you give them credit for. Judges can certainly alther the course of testimony, or override defence objections, even down to allowing/disallowing evidence and removing/replacing jurors without explanation. Remember, this case has to be approved by a judge to go to trial in the first place.

quote:
It's against the law to do anything in a car that distracts your attention from the road.

Could you please point me to that law in your state? There are laws against certain items in some jurisdictions, but nothing that implicitly states "anything that distracts". That argument could certainly be made about the radio, GPS, cigarette lighter, and guess what, drinking in your car! So by your logic, it is completely illegal for any beverage to be sold through a drive through.
Rather the laws state that you are responsible for maintaining control of your vehicule. Subtle wording difference, but makes a tremendous real world difference.

quote:
It is not illegal to be the passenger in a car and order coffee and try and put in cream while the car is stopped in a parking lot.

It's not smart either, and my stance has always been that she should have been more than 20% accountable.

quote:
I've never seen a train and wished I had one inside my car so I could drink it.
Once again taking an example too far, to prove your erroneous point. Say that iPod kid was walking across a public street, then what. Or maybe the loud music prevented him from avoiding a danger, all why everyone is legal. You can twist an argument all you want, but the point is still vaild.

quote:
Yes, there are frivolous lawsuits, but saying all litigation against corporations is a bad boat to get in.

Never said that, and I agree.

quote:
Corporations hate being sued.

You wouldn't like being sued either, so it's not fair to single corporations out.

quote:
Corporations are biasing the public against lawsuits so that lawmakers will change the laws and cut down on the number of lawsuits corporations face and cut down on the maximum punishments allowed. Who is this good for? The companies!

People know it when they smell a rat. There needs to be a quick, effective measure to completely dismiss frivilous lawsuits. Only when it doesn't become financially viable to sue a corporation for millions of dollars, settle for six figures just because it is cheaper than litigating it will there be change. One thing I know for certain, Lawyers just keep getting richer bringing these cases up. It is one of the few industries that defys supply and demand, the more you have, the more lawyers you need to defend against each other. There needs to be penalties.

quote:
Now, punitive damages are being limited in many states. Who does this help?
It doesn't help the attornies, who sometimes take more than 70% of the proceeds.

I'm not pro-company/anti-consumer. I'm for taking personal responsibility. I don't try to slice a tomatoe in my hand, and if I cut myself because I did it, don't try and sue the knife manufacturer. That sounds like a dumb example because it is, so are many of the other real suits being filed today.
A family sues a department store for being thrown to the ground by security outside the building. They were steeling items worth over 5k. They recieve 6 figures for punative and personal damage. Is this right??? Since you like everything to be legal and such, they committed an illegal act, yet are still compensated. Doesn't make sense to me.

McDonalds should have paid. They should have settled. But she should have the signifigant burden of responsibility. Common sense. It is know that coffee is hot. It is known that you could get burned (even if it was 155). It should be assumed that any rational person will not place an open cup between their legs in a car. A rational person, would hold the cup away from them while pouring the creamer in. If she did this, the entire event would have been avoided.

Now, if a car manufacturer (for instance) made a defective part, knew about the part, and it caused an accident due to brake failure. That person has every right to sue, since they were negligent in fixing the problem. This was caused by failure of a part, not because the driver operated the vehicule any differently. The event was completely out of his control. Spilling coffee on herself was not. Surely you can see the difference.

I feel her responsibility should have been 70-80%. And at the same time, I also feel that some appeals should not be granted, and corporations should have to pay that money right away, rather than trying to appeal ad nauseum to extend it out. In the end, that's exactly what McDonald's did, and why the terms are sealed, I bet she got pretty close to that 20-30% of the original judgement. She could have got her money sooner, the family could have moved on, and the legal system wouldn't have been tied up as long. But the attornies would not have made as much, so that wasn't going to happen.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/27/2007 2:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Her entire incident could have been avoided if she didn't decide to open her coffee in a car and pour creamer into it, all while balancing the coffee between her legs.

This statement doesn't really say anything. People eat, change CDs, radio stations, talk on their cells, in the car all the time. Doesn't give McD or anybody else justification to scar the women's vagina closed. And again dismissal of government orders, prior history, why is that? Are you suggesting that McD could burn customer after customer onto infinity as long as they pay for the medical bills? Where does it end?
quote:
It's against the law to do anything in a car that distracts your attention from the road.

quote:
Could you please point me to that law in your state?

When you rear end someone you typically get a ticket for failing to maintain control of your vehicle. That in essence is saying when you're driving that's your legal priority. You may not get a ticket that actually words it "eating pizza while driving", but that's pretty much it.
quote:
You wouldn't like being sued either, so it's not fair to single corporations out.

I don't hire lobbyists to rewrite law. Big difference. You want people to take responsibility, and not corporations? What would you have done with the Ford Pinto? A NASA engineer called the design of the gas tank "dispicable".
quote:
McDonalds should have paid. They should have settled.

quote:
There needs to be a quick, effective measure to completely dismiss frivilous lawsuits.

So then why use this case as an example of frivilous lawsuits, as have others? It can't be both ways. Even at 5% responsible(below your favored 20%), if there's a $2,000,000 medical bill that's not frivilous. And you will note that McD did not offer to pay all medical bills. Why is that? Part of the "taking reponsibility" stuff?


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/28/2007 10:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This statement doesn't really say anything. People eat, change CDs, radio stations, talk on their cells, in the car all the time. Doesn't give McD or anybody else justification to scar the women's vagina closed. And again dismissal of government orders, prior history, why is that? Are you suggesting that McD could burn customer after customer onto infinity as long as they pay for the medical bills? Where does it end?

Something funny I found about this little comment of yours. If you are holding a cell phone while driving in many areas it is illegal and you will be ticketed. If you get into a motor accident while using a cell phone then most insurance agencies will hold you accountable. Same can be said for your food example. If you are eating a full course meal driving down the interstate and you get into an accident, its your own fault.

In the end McDonalds didn't burn this lady, she burnt herself through sheer ignorance. Instead of placing her drink in the freaking cup holder, of which there are about 15 of in any given vehicle these days, she decided her own flesh was the more appropriate form of restraint for a cup of recently BOILED WATER. So, please tell me, what part of this situation is McDonalds responsible for when it comes to what the customer does with their product after it leaves the window? Thats like suing a gun shop for buying a gun and then stepping outside the door and blowing your arm off. How the hell is that the responsibility of anyone besides the person holding the gun or holding the boiling water between her legs.

Whats your deal with protecting this idiot anyway? Do you also hold 100+ degree items in a container with holes it will driving down a bumpy road? Nevermind, don't answer. Given you would side with this person I probably wouldn't care for the number of things you would do and blame on someone or something else.
quote:
I don't hire lobbyists to rewrite law. Big difference. You want people to take responsibility, and not corporations? What would you have done with the Ford Pinto? A NASA engineer called the design of the gas tank "dispicable".

Nice diversionary tactic there. I wonder if the NASA engineer also spelled "despicable" wrong. Ford designed a bad car, BUT McDonalds didn't design coffee! They also didn't design how to make coffee. They didn't design the containers for coffee for that matter either. And they most certainly didn't spill the coffee on the lady. So whats your point of reference for relating these two again???


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
she decided her own flesh was the more appropriate form of restraint for a cup of recently BOILED WATER.

That would imply:
1. She knew it was still this hot, apparently as to be able to sense temperature 100% accurately through styrofoam.

and

2. She did this on purpose.

Need I say more?

quote:
she burnt herself through sheer ignorance.

The burn itself was never an issue, the degree of damage is the issue.
quote:
Whats your deal with protecting this idiot anyway? Do you also hold 100+ degree items in a container with holes it will driving down a bumpy road?

Setting aside your personal attack people who study criminal justice and law tend to have a better grasp of how things work.
quote:
And they most certainly didn't spill the coffee on the lady.

You simply refuse to grasp the issue, you'd fail a 100-level college course with this argument.
quote:
So whats your point of reference for relating these two again???

The "reasonable and prudent adult" point, which occurs routinely in law. What's yours?


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/28/2007 8:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
Now your just being silly.

The only thing it implies is this.
1. Recently bought coffee = hot. Duuuuhhhh.
-This goes along the same lines as the first time anyone has hot coffee and has burned their mouth. They instinctively check every coffee with a little sip before drinking for the rest of their life.

2. Shes an idiot. This shouldn't be a huge leap for anyone to grasp seeing as we see about 10-15 post something utterly dumb here on a daily basis.
quote:
The burn itself was never an issue, the degree of damage is the issue.

Incorrect. The issue is negligence which was the issue the courts addressed. What part of hot cup of uncovered coffee in between someones legs instead of the cup holder don't you understand.

I see you skipped the argument that a person buying a gun and placing the barrel in their crotch while driving around has the exact same point as an idiot taking a hot cup of coffee and placing it in their lap with the top off.
quote:
Setting aside your personal attack people who study criminal justice and law tend to have a better grasp of how things work.

First, what personal attack?
Second, you mean those people that absolutely nobody can stand? Those people that have the most horrible reputation on the planet. You mean those people that argued to acquit OJ Simpson and Phil Spector. Yeah dude those guys have such a great understanding of how things work. LOL I'm sorry man but I think I'm going to be laughing at that for at least a few days now.

You gotta get off the rocks.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 2:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you get into a motor accident while using a cell phone then most insurance agencies will hold you accountable.

Only to a degree. The other driver could be drunk, speeding, and running a red light. All factors are weighed and assigned a value. You don't seem capable of grasping this basic way things work.

And we just keep overlooking the 700 prior incidents. Why is that?


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/28/2007 7:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
lol dont be an @ss. No one said anything about drunks, speeding or anything else. Is it your intent to purposefully obfuscate every situation until it suites your opinion.


RE: WtF
By TheGreek on 9/29/2007 7:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
I said it depends. I never made an all or nothing decision, as have so many here. I said all the facts need to addressed, and you have issues with that.

Sorry if logic pisses you off.


RE: WtF
By SandmanWN on 9/29/2007 11:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Adding things to a hypothetical to suite your needs. Real logic there. Pff


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki