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

By TheGreek on 9/28/2007 1:58:41 PM , Rating: 2
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.


2. She did this on purpose.

Need I say more?

she burnt herself through sheer ignorance.

The burn itself was never an issue, the degree of damage is the issue.
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.
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.
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?

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.
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.
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.

"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki