Re: Suing Google

In article <1afbq19mdvguh3vepb085f8m3auf3ij73b@xxxxxxx>, turtill@xxxxxxxxxxx
says...
>
>On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:59:59 +0000 (UTC), "Nobby"
>&lt;gaggleOFinadequates@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Hi Peter,
>>All the info you require to ascertain you are on the No win path
>>can be found on.........Google!
>>The following is easily found via just some of the following links
>>regarding legal action that failed:
>>The issues concerned have been legally tested many times, and
>>always fail.
>>It is now legally accepted that many online posts are nothing more
>>than opinion, conjecture, bull*** and gobbledegook form the likes
>>of online obssesso's, idiots, children, fools, commedians, sexual
>>and social inadequates, senile demented buffoons, pyscho's etc etc
>>blah blah blah... including me and this post! - Legally they count for
>>sweet Fanny Adams!
>>
>>Via linking from one of the links below, you will find the American
>>high court case that failed for Global Telemedia and the issue of
>>two postings on a usenet message board- It applies here too!
>>"Scathing opinions" are not actionable! Opinion by a Political consultant
>>nor the panelists of HIGNFY, or even the X-factor. And proven over
>>and over again not to be on dopey usenet messageboards.
>>It is established that legally there is no parallel between a tabloid
>>frontpage headline and an obscure post in usenet about an individual.
>>And for the most part the Libel laws do not apply to such posts.
>>Via the links you will find the instance of 120 public trading Companies -
>>Thats right, large conglomerates who have had the financial muscle to
>>take legal action for cyber Libel - and Failed, Global Telemedia being
>>just one of these for two posts in usenet. You as a disabled individual
>>do not stand a chance on issues that have already been legally decided.
>>(You can find it all via..........Google!!! ).
>>In the private email, I explained how usenet was once carried in the UK
>>by ISP's via web format BBS, Only here in UK is that deemed as
>>"monitoring". So no Web format Bullitin boards sourced here in UK.
>>But both yahoo and google have legally established that their archives
>>are not UK and Not Monitored - they are not responsible for and not liable
>>for the content.
>
>I valued your e-mail contact Nobby and as far as computers go you are
>obviously an expert par excellancé.

LOL.

>However here we are talking law and except for a few items the links you have
>kindly
>posted have no relevance in the UK.
>
>>You may like to direct your issues to this forum, you may note
>>that google are veterans of winning legal actions:
>>http://techlawadvisor.com/2005/03/american-blind-v-google.html
>
>Not relevant. Merkin law.
>
>>"The fair use argument"
>>This issue concerns subjects that Google choose ("elects") to include,
>>Basically it is a copyRight issue, but they are not liable for content.
>>http://news.com.com/Publishers+sue+Google+over+book+search+project/2100-1030_3-5902115.html
>
>Merkin copyright issue. Not relevant in this situation.
>
>>Lawsuits and posts to the web
>>http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=598538
>
>Not relevant again. Also unanswered;-)
>
>>Via the sub links, pertinant to your issues, It could be said
>>that if you had indeed been libelled, it could also be said
>>that you have continued to maintain others knowledge of
>>any possible libel? You would lose on that point alone?
>>http://www.legalday.co.uk/current/themes/libel.htm
>
>I already knew of most of those cases and indeed they support my
>point. One of the cases there is about drek and me but it is badly
>stated and inaccurate too.

Only in your opinion, peter dear.
>
>>An example of "Free speech, scathing opinion" that will probably
>>fail as a libel case, but the defendent had been claiming the posts
>>were not made by him, but attempted to have the case dismissed
>>on grounds of "free speech" - ruled that he cannot have a case
>>dismissed on "free speech" for comments he claimed he did not
>>make??
>> http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/abn/y03/m03/i07/s02
>
>That is also not relevant.
>
>>"google is an American company"?:
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/29/AR2005042900432.html
>>http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=1398589
>
>It operates within UK and is subject to UK law.
>
>>I for one do not want usenet nor google restricted, they are diamonds in
>>the general cesspit that is the web. It has got to the point Peter where
>>you have to accept it cannot go any further, you won't win and it has to be
>>said you are seemingly the only one who perpetuates the whole issue.
>>And there are some who say that you got yourself into the position that
>>you find yourself in?
>>Ease up, take care
>>Wishing you peace.
>
>Thanks Nobby. I also value google and would like to make it more
>acceptable and reliable than it is at the moment.

Do you mean that you want google to remove any post you require them to remove
or give you exclusive rights to remove any posts you wish. LOL

>Google were given every chance to remove the offending items and failed to do so
>promptly and I shall be spending xmas

You have *** all else to do, not like your family will be gathering round is
it, LOL

>writing out the claim form for the Queen's Bench Division of the Royal Courts Of
>Justice
>with the view of obtaining an injunction against google and damages. In view of
>the circular nature of this subject please note I will not be posting
>anymore on this subject after this post

Okay, now who can keep count of the posts that turtill makes on this subject,
Marshall perhaps. LOL

>and nor will I be accepting e-mails on the subject either off anyone. It has
>been an
>interesting discussion, mainly so because of the number of experts here who
>avoided it, but also because I have not come across any posts that
>address the issue of why can someone libel someone and have it held in
>perpetuity to be published by google every time someone clicks on it.

It may be because you have not had it removed yet.

>I am certain this case

As you were certain about the case with your brother-in-law who you say owed you
£5000, the court did not believe you. You were certain about your case against
Derek Hornby, but you bottled it and abandoned the case. You were certain about
your better brother, but you didn't get any money from him or your mother's
estate. LOL.

>can only benefit usenet by improving it

you could do that yourself by dying or not posting to usenet.

>or more to the point the archiving of it.

Do you mean if they granted you exclusive rights to remove any post you didn't
like or that didn't tow your line. LOL

>Thanks to the Mclibel two I may also get legal aid too.

I would prefer you got Mad Cow Disease, what was that murmer at the back.LOL.

>Matter closed for me now thanks.

And counting.

>Peter Turtill

A nasty piece of usenet ***.

At least your grandchildren will know who you really are. LOL


--
Mrs.Smicker-Abacha
.