The End of the Beginning ... and the beginning of the end for Facebook & Google

Finally, 14 months after filing the Crypto Class Action against Facebook & Google, the first interlocutory hearing to establish prima facie case and obtain leave to serve Facebook & Google in the USA is finished.

Judgement is reserved and will probably take another month or two (or three).

While only a small part of the overall proceedings, this mammoth exercise has involved seven appearances (via MS teams) ranging from 1 - 3 hours each in front of two Judges, starting on 11 Sep 2020 and finishing on 11 October 2021.

I went from being an unknown self-represented litigant with a claim the first Judge was initially quite skeptical about, to being a respected experienced solicitor advocate putting the legal "icing on top of the icing on the cake" of prima facie case on one of the most important and ground breaking pieces of litigation to come before Australian Courts in many a year.

Thousands of pages of evidence have been filed as well as a video and html interactive charts of ETH & BTC price and volume with relevant dates of ad ban activity marked (thanks @brianoflondon).

This process, while lengthy, has been most valuable as I have learned a lot and continually improved and refined the case.

Also, the past 13 months have brought numerous legal and factual windfalls to my case. Avenues of defence which Facebook & Google may have pursued have been closed off by decisions in other cases, and the overall environment has become much more accepting of cryptocurrencies and more and more concerned about the power and behavior of Facebook & Google.

I'm confident that I will obtain a finding of prima facie case and get leave to serve and then I can move onto the next step of getting a "no adverse costs order" which will put me on a level playing field costs wise with these immensely wealthy companies.

The legal case theories I am pursuing will dramatically change the competition law landscape worldwide regarding Big Tech and online advertising as well as being the first substantial case about the cryptocurrency industry.

I expect that once the Judgement is published there will be a lot of media and legal commentator attention on the case.
Thankfully @brianoflondon loves this sort of stuff (and is great at it) so he will handle most of it leaving me to focus on the Court work itself.

Hive itself will also get attention and coverage out of the case which will boost Hive's profile further.

Watch this Hive space for more developments as they occur....

Please vote for my Hive witness. (KeyChain or HiveSigner)

Witness Vote using direct Hivesigner



0
0
0.000
42 comments
avatar

I can't imagine the hours that have been poured into this... but I can tell you that we all definitely appreciate the effort you've both put in and the tenacity you've shown. It definitely sounds like you're gaining good ground against companies that essentially have unlimited resources.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I expect that once the Judgement is published there will be a lot of media and legal commentator attention on the case.

And all the work that you have done will be recognized as lights in the darkness. A new revolution will begin, which may cause these big tech companies run from pillar to post.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Thanks. Yes a lot of work done quietly for a long time is how most “overnight successes “ occur. Splinterlands is an example.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Congratulations on getting another step further forward with this. I admire your tenacity!

Good luck with the next bit and thanks for keeping us updated. 😁

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

It pains me that at the start of each of our court appearances the Judge's associate reads out a scary warning that any recording or capture of the proceedings is illegal and punishable. Over the last 4 weeks Andrew appeared three times for a total of just under seven hours of straight presentation to the Judge. It's just him and the judge, I've been watching and taking notes but I can't be seen or heard.

It pains me because I feel sure I'm watching something historic. We do have a transcript but that's not the same. Suffice it to say these many hours calmly presenting concepts like proof of Work and mining (we have the Bitcoin and Ethereum White Papers in evidence) to a Judge in Australia's Federal Court is just the tip of the work iceberg and I'd love more people to see this.

As it is, the result will be in the form of a hopefully positive judgment but I want to publicly add weight to everything Andrew says. This case really is ground breaking and my feeling, from having watched the Judge closely, is that she knows this and knows how important this judgment is. Not just the final result, but the way in which it reaches a conclusion and how that is explained.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Hi @brianoflondon Why would the judge go against the rights of the public to acess, by stating that nothing may be recorded?

0
0
0.000
avatar

The Australian legal system (and the British) have always prohibited video, audio or even photographic recordings in court rooms. This extends even to online hearings now.

The public and reporters can sit in but they can not record or re broadcast.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Wow. I didn't know that, as it is allowed in South Africa. Although at times the judges can refuse the media's requests in sensitive cases. I don't know if the media is allowed to record.

You guys are doing a great job for all of us. I mean not only for Hive, but for the world.

A real David and Goliath battle, but in this case there are two Goliaths.
Oh and two David's I might add.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Has the judge checked in Microsoft's servers if they don't record the sessions, through "MS teams"? I would think they do, at least to train their own lawyers and to be one move ahead in this gigantic chessgame.

And the US "three letters agencies" also do, probably providing Facebook and Google with a copy, in case they'd ask for one.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The court records all the sessions but I have no idea if there is a way to get access to recordings or only to the official court transcript (which costs quite a bit to buy afterwards).

0
0
0.000
avatar

That's another point that would be worth to be investigated 🙃.

A rain of thanks and blessings for your restless work in favor of freedom!

0
0
0.000
avatar

The CIA and other agencies have spy systems which has the ability to monitor and save things meaning if it is connected to the Internet, then it is being recorded and saved by governmental agencies like the CIA and others. And it is an international issue. Meaning if they say you can't record it, that has no meaning because it is being recorded. So, it is like saying do not put water in the cup, but there is water in the cup. And if you accidentally put a drop of water in that cup, it would be insane for them to get mad at you because there was already water in the cup.

0
0
0.000
avatar

And Australia does not have the legal jurisdiction because Facebook is an international matter.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Whether or not something can be broadcast may depend at least partly on who owns the court building and then there is the matter of how the laws of man can sometimes violate natural law and such. But regardless of reality, loopholes, etc, I understand that some judges might be too corrupt and the accumulation and acceleration of excessive laws, codes, etc. In reality, the trials can be recorded. But they lie and say it can't because of this thing and that thing. I would probably record it. But then it becomes a question of when to broadcast it.


It also depends on which hill you are willing to die on kind of thing, pick your battles, so it might be better to let this particular issue slide. But I guess it depends. But if I felt that broadcasting the trial to the world would make a big enough difference in the world, I might do it even in the face of death. But I would argue that it was technically legal from the standpoint of natural law and I would probably connect it to the Nuremberg Code and how it is regarding international matters.


That is the tricky thing about law, especially when it comes to the Internet. Facebook is international meaning it cannot be contained to one jurisdiction and therefore the laws of Australia cannot be applied as it is dealing with an entity that is global. When Australia withholds the trial from the world, they are therefore interfering with the affairs of different countries. If the United Nations wasn't so corrupt, I'd present all of that to them. But I know the UN is pretty evil despite having a good cover story regarding trying to help the world.


But long story short, I have strong opinions when it comes to international matters like Facebook which Australia tries to jump on top of. But Australia cannot monopolies and hide something like that. I wish I could emphasize on the understanding of legal jurisdictions and how Australia is clearly out of their jurisdiction. But I know this kind of thing is not new. But this is a kind of thing that deserves more attention.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That is awesome news! I look forward to seeing and hearing how this all plays out. Thank you for all of the time and work that you have been putting into this!

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

Look forward to positive results setting a precedence in the future. Well done to both of you!

0
0
0.000
avatar

WOW! Totally forgot about this. still holding my tokens :-)

0
0
0.000
avatar

I hodling my tokens! Anything we mere hiveans can do to help, just blow the big horn!

untitled.gif

0
0
0.000
avatar

I have always heard that legal cases are a huge nightmare to deal with and I am pretty sure you had to deal with a lot of back and forth with them. In the case you do get a judgment, is it like the US where they can appeal like crazy before things get set in stone. It's a uphill fight for sure.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

This is just the very first stage but it is important.
Yes, they can appeal.
Its a lengthy process but when you have a strong case you just need to work through it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Can I be an extra when the movie rights go to Hollywood? lol This is incredible work you are doing. It's like Erin Brockovich times a hundred. The meticulous attention to detail and the time involved to get it all right have to be amazingly difficult. The winds of change are blowing and for a change they seem to be blowing in the right direction for what you're doing. Congrats on taking it this far and thank you for taking us along on the journey. I can't wait for the climactic conclusion in the months ahead.

@brianoflondon Wen podcast? I would think you would have hours and hours of material. :-)

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

I don't think that @brianoflondon or I are as good looking as Erin Brockovich but if we are successful I agree it will make good movie / Netflix series material.

0
0
0.000
avatar

You have been like a dog with a bone on this and lets hope this becomes a landmark case in your favor. Good publicity for the law practice as well as this wont go un noticed.

Posted Using LeoFinance Beta

0
0
0.000
avatar

Can't wait. YouTube is the absolute worst censorship / unfair algorithms and censorship that violate all their own advertisements and terms of service. Google should have been sued out of existence by now. Constantly claiming people like myself are "harassing" people by sharing "news worthy" content. Please.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Looove this, @apshamilton ! (and I've voted for your work as a Hive witness).

Have you envisioned that those behemoths, in case they feel they would theoretically and on a legal base loose this case, could:

a) purchase the judges' favor, through bribery, and

b) simply write a cryptoban in the US bill draft, to make their obedient Congressmen vote it (hiding it among thousands of pages about other legal dispositions that nobody reads), just like it's being done with the so-called "Infrastructure Bill" aiming at taxing crypto-operations to agony?

In this second case, I guess that prosecuting them for crypto ads ban wouldn't have any purpose anymore, advertising illegal products (cryptos) being in itself illegal too.

0
0
0.000
avatar
(Edited)

Hi @ijatz and thanks for the witness vote.

It is important to remember that this case is being run in Australia and relates to illegal cartel and anti-competitive conduct starting in Jan 2018.

To realistically get a Judge in your pocket you need to offer favours (monetary or political) over a long period prior to you ever coming before a Court. This is perhaps why Facebook and Google try to force all litigation against them to the Northern District of California.

Australian Courts have just invalidated such clauses in competition law cases, not that it applied to my case anyway.

Facebook and Google have paid absolutely no attention to Australian law and regulation until very recently. Otherwise they would have sought prior authorisation from the Australian regulator, as any Australian competition lawyer would have told them had they asked.

Australian Judges are much more independent and impartial than US Judges because they are not political appointees. While some do have biases, these relate to parochial local issues (like unions vs companies) and certainly do not favour huge multi-nationals.

Bribery is extremely rare and unacceptable in Australian culture and law and most Judges really try to be completely above reproach.

Secondly, because this case relates to past events no new law can protect Facebook and Google from their breaches.

And in the current environment Facebook & Google are not going to get new protections anywhere in the world, let alone Australia.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Awesome, @apshamilton !

This case is in the best possible hands, seeing how pedagogical and thoughtful you are in these Hive interactions (your answer to my questions is evidence of that). Thousands of thanks for practicing the "learning, caring and sharing" trilogy as your daily rule!!!

0
0
0.000
avatar

I admire people who take on the big tech control freaks.

0
0
0.000