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 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'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











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