Ultimate Guide to Understanding Electric Jag Car Fires
When you buy your brand-new car, the last thing you expect is that one day, it will spontaneously catch fire and be reduced to ashes before your eyes. This is precisely what happened to Gonzalo Salazar in Florida. These days, most car manufacturers are beginning to venture into the electric vehicle business, and Jaguar is one of them. The new Jaguar I-Pace electric car has proved to be a big hit among US consumers.
This is all good and a step in the right direction regarding efforts to preserve the environment. However, the safety of the passengers has to be paramount. This means incidents of cars catching fire should not be allowed to happen.
If you have been involved in a similar situation where your car was damaged or destroyed after catching fire, Call Ehline Law at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation.
What Exactly Happened?
According to the report on this latest battery fire, Gonzalo Salazar parked his car in the garage after doing a few errands the previous night. He had plugged his car in before going to bed.
Salazar reported that he first noticed something wrong when he heard pops from the garage the following day. He decided to see what was making the noise, and upon walking into the garage, he saw that it was full of smoke.
Acting quickly, he drove the car out of the garage and onto the street before calling Jaguar roadside assistance. The fire soon spread, and the vehicle was engulfed in flames rapidly.
When he noticed that flames were rapidly developing underneath the car, he called 911 for help. Members of the fire department arrived and poured a particular foam fire suppressant onto the vehicle.
When the fire department arrived at the scene, Gonzalo Salazar decided to stay a safe distance until the professionals poured flame retardant foam on the car because debris was flying everywhere.
This Is Not the First Incident Involving Jaguar I-pace Electric Cars
There were other incidents involving a Jaguar I-Pace electric car, so what happened to Salazar is not isolated. In one case, the Jaguar I-Pace caught fire in the Netherlands while parked in a driveway in 2018. The same thing happened in Oregon, and yet another I-Pace, while charging, caught fire in Hungary last October.
This makes the latest incident the fourth battery fire in which a Jaguar I-Pace caught fire while charging or parked in a driveway.
Can LG Pouch Battery Cells Be the Cause?
The recent rise in battery fires can be attributed to using LG battery cells as the primary power source. Like most electric vehicles, the Kona EV and Bolt EV from Hyundai and Chevy and the Jaguar I-Pace electric car have LG pouch battery cells. This is why Jaguar I-Pace manufacturers have recently looked deeper into battery fire risks.
Tips to Remember if Your Car Catches Fire
If your electric vehicle, such as the Bolt EV or Kona EV, uses LG battery cells like this, then keep the following tips in mind in the event of a battery fire:
Make Sure Everyone Is Safe
Move everyone to a safe distance from the electric vehicle in case debris from the battery fire is flying everywhere.
Move the Vehicle to Safety if Possible
If you feel it is safe, move the car to a safe place where the flames won’t spread to the rest of the house. Should you leave the garage door open? At a minimum, leave the garage door empty to allow airflow.
Call 911 for Help
In previous cases, such as when Jaguar’s I-Pace caught fire and emergency personnel poured flame retardant foam on the vehicle, the owners were lucky they called 911 for help. If your car uses LG battery cells, you should never forget to contact the fire department rather than fight a battery fire by yourself.
Let Your Insurance Company Know
Like the one on the Jaguar I-Pace involved in this latest battery fire, LG battery cells may have specific implications regarding your insurance policy. Therefore, you should call your insurer as soon as possible.
Call a Good Lawyer
With many recently recalled Jaguar I-Pace electric cars for battery fire risks, now would be a good time to call an experienced lawyer to evaluate your options.
Ehline Law Firm Can Help
We represent all-electric vehicle owners who have faced problems with their cars catching fire through no fault.
We offer:
Legal Advice
Help to get compensation for property damage
Assistance in suing the car manufacturer
Medical and lost wage benefits if required.
Visit Ehline Law Firm Today
We will speak directly with you about whether you own a Jaguar I-Pace or any other electric vehicle. Ehline Law is here to help fight for your rights if you are in circumstances similar to those of I-Pace owner Gonzalo Salazar. Call our law offices today for a free consultation at (833) LETS-SUE.
Star of Long-Running TV Series Passes Away Surrounded by Family
Ultimate Guide to Understanding Magnum P.I. Actor Death. Roger Earl Mosley has died at the age of 83. He died Sunday at quarter past one in the morning at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center with his loved ones beside him. Family members confirmed his passing on Facebook later that day. Mosley was known for his role as helicopter pilot Theodore TC Calvin on the much-loved TV show Magnum P.I., but he will first and fondly be remembered as a great man by all who knew him personally.
The Peaceful Passing Comes Days After Car Accident
Three days before his death, Mosley was involved in a car crash in Lynwood, Los Angeles.
Few details have been revealed regarding the nature of the accident, but injuries reportedly left the Magnum P.I. star in critical condition and paralyzed below his shoulders.
Mosley’s Daughter Ch-a shared news of the incident via Instagram, urging fans to send love as he fought for his life. She stated that best efforts were being made to care for him and that his family was with him during a tough time for them. The social media post concluded with a touching tribute to his strength, calling him a lion, a trailblazer, and a role model.
He Would Hate Any Crying, says the Daughter.
Ch-a Mosley appeared on Facebook to announce the death of her father.
In her words, she said that they could never mourn such a fantastic man and that he would not have wanted tears. Instead, she asked fans to celebrate his memory and the legacy he left.
Remembering Roger Earl Mosley: An Amazing Man, Father, Friend, Coach, and Actor
In honor of said legacy, we briefly look back at some of the ways Mosley will be remembered.
Early Film and TV Career
Mosley’s list of TV appearances goes on, with highlights including Love Boat, Starsky and Hutch, and The Rockford Files. He later starred alongside John Wayne in McQ, a police drama from the mid-’70s.
Before he portrayed Theodore Calvin, he played Sonny Liston in the 1977 film The Greatest.
He is also well-known for his regular work in Blaxploitation films such as The Mack.
His 1976 film Leadbelly, where he played the iconic folk singer Huddie Ledbetter, was praised by renowned critic Roger Ebert. In a sidebar, Roger called it one of the best biographies of a musician he had seen.
A Decade of TV History Alongside Tom Selleck
Undoubtedly, Magnum P. I was the highlight of Mosley’s acting career. According to the show’s star, Tom Selleck, Mosley wasn’t bothered about the role of helicopter pilot Theodore TC Calvin.
According to an interview given by Mosley, his agent convinced him to do it because it starred some guy- Tom Selleck- whose pilots always failed.
The idea was to shoot the Magnum pilot, get paid, and then go home. As we know, Selleck’s Thomas Magnum was a hit with his right-hand man TC, and the show went on to run for more than 160 episodes.
Tom Selleck’s character was also joined by John Hillerman and Larry Manetti, who, together with Mosley, would thrill fans for eight seasons over eight years.
His final return to the screen was a reprise of his most famous role in the new Magnum P.I., starring Jay Hernandez.
A Dedicated Coach
Another side to Mosley was his dedicated community work as a track coach in the unified school district. He worked with countless youngsters, encouraging them to reach their goals and excel.
He may have played Coach Ricketts on the silver screen, but to his community, Coach Mosley instilled a work ethic, strong morals, and knowledge in the people he worked with.
Loving Family Man
Above all, he was a man who loved his family. He was married for almost 60 years to his wife, Antoinette, who outlived him and their son, Daughter, and grandson.
Mosley died surrounded by those who loved him the most.
Have You Lost a Loved One in a Car Accident in Los Angeles? Contact Ehline Law Today
Losing a loved one under any circumstances is challenging. It can be even more difficult to understand when somebody dies in an accident.
Ehline Law is the leading authority in car accident and personal injury law in Los Angeles, with years of experience pursuing wrongful death claims on behalf of victims’ families.
Let Us Seek Justice for Your Loved Ones so You Can Focus on Remembering and Paying Respect to Their Legacy
The team at Ehline Law fights for the justice you and your loved one deserve. If you have a case, contact the team of dedicated and passionate lawyers today and begin the road to healing.
Unfortunately, the story of Naya Rivera ended far too soon. The 33-year-old actress was confirmed dead after a probable boating accident in California. The former Glee star was believed dead after going missing on a boating trip with her son. There is still much information to be released.
However, it appears that the boat may have tipped over. Rivera’s son was found alone in the craft. Unfortunately, on Sunday, authorities found a body. On Monday, it was confirmed to be the former Glee star.
Risk at the Lake
The 33-year-old tied as part of her boating expedition. Only her 4-year-old son survived. He said he and his mother went swimming, yet she did not return to the boat. The accident occurred at Lake Piru in Ventura County, California. Authorities originally had issues during the search due to poor water visibility and objects under the water. Over 80 people were initially involved in the search. The lake is known for its whirlpools— which caused other deaths in the past.
The local officials did not take proper action to protect boaters and swimmers. For the untrained, Lake Piru is a major challenge, which also makes it a significant injury and drowning risk. If authorities did nothing and knew of the risk, they could be liable. Residents requested signs be put up around the lake. However, that hasn’t happened yet. Furthermore, Rivera’s death was not the first at the site. In addition, the risk inherent at the site was ignored.
These factors all come together as a possible case of civic negligence. Local or county officials likely knew of a potentially deadly issue and, for whatever reason, did not act on it. Perhaps it was due to time, maybe it was due to money, or perhaps it was due to willful negligence.
Regardless of the immediate cause, another life was extinguished, at least in part, due to their inaction. The case is still unfolding, and I plan to cover it extensively. I’ve already written an op-ed about the risk of watercraft and possible child endangerment for the unprepared.
I’ll keep on it. You can reach me through other articles on the site or at michael@ehlinelaw.com. God Bless Naya Rivera’s family, and let us all pray that something like this never happens at Lake Piru again.
We’ve all heard the famous phrase, “one man’s trash is another man’s treasure,” and it’s true. At times one can spot valuable items in a dumpster left by a moving tenant. One recent incident saw a dumpster diver’s expedition become a garbage truck nightmare.
Let’s explore the details of the news with the Los Angeles trash truck lawyers at Ehline Law and our personal injury attorneys.
47-year-old Woman Suffers Injuries after Her Dumpster Diving Expedition
On September 26, 2022, a 47-year-old woman ended up in a garbage truck and suffered injuries during her dumpster diving expedition.
Odessa Police Report Confirms Woman Was Digging Through a Dumpster at 6 AM
According to an Odessa police report, a woman was digging through a garbage dumpster at about 6 AM on the 500 block of West 42nd when a garbage disposal vehicle picked up the dumpster and emptied it in the back.
The Dumpster Diving Woman Reaches out to Police 25 Minutes Later
The woman called the police 25 minutes later to explain her situation.
However, the law enforcement officers took 2 hours to find the woman as it was difficult to track her without much information.
Facebook Content Causes Stir Online about “Dead Body”
Someone saw the woman’s body in the landfill dumpster and reported the incident on Facebook.
The social media content caused a stir online, as many believed the woman to be dead.
Authorities Tracked the Woman 2 Hours after the Incident Happened
Odessa Fire Rescue Chief John Alvarez was the first to arrive at the landfill, where the dumpster eventually ended.
According to Alvarez, the woman suffered minor head and back injuries when thrown into the garbage truck.
Is Dumpster Diving Legal in the United States?
Technically, dumpster diving is legal in all 50 states as long as it is not on private property. However, checking your city ordinances before embarking on a dumpster diving expedition is crucial.
In the 1988 State of California vs. Greenwood case, the Supreme Court ruled that it is legal to search the trash as long as it does not interfere with city ordinances.
Trash on the curb becomes “public domain,” which means the Fourth Amendment does not apply. Anyone can then rummage through it without breaking any violations unless the city ordinance prohibits dumpster diving.
What Are the Injured Woman’s Rights in “Dumpster Diving Woman Ends up in Garbage Truck Incident”?
The main question is, “can the woman recover compensation from the City of Odessa for her injuries?”
Since the incident occurred in Odessa, the woman cannot recover compensation from the government agency for her injuries, as dumpster diving violates the city ordinance and is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,000.
Schedule a Free Consultation with Ehline Law
If you suffered injuries due to a government agency’s negligence, contact us at (833) LETS-SUE for a free consultation, as you may qualify for compensation.
When I posted a copy about Meta’s liability under Section 230, strange things started happening with my Instagram account. All will be revealed below. Meta thinks it can avoid civil liability, even if what it says about your content is false and even if what they say is designed to directly compete with your content financially.
So far, it has seemingly steamrolled many judges, with help from plaintiffs’ lawyers who CLEARLY don’t understand internet platforms, including social media platforms and their original functions. Originally, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was designed to protect companies like Meta if they were to restrict access to “harmful content,” aka pornographic content, death threats with intent to kill, etc.
But with help from instrumentality influence in the FBI and other agencies, these internet services now rate, review, and restrict third-party content and even augment. They do so using an ABSURD and poor interpretation of Section 230 to escape and evade legal liability for fraud, defamation, and other civil and quasi-criminal acts.
Tech companies rely on revolving door US government connections and law clerks to steer judges, many of whom admittedly are not internet law experts. As discussed here, it’s like the wild West for billionaire monopolists, who appear to have de facto control of both political parties and many US regulatory agencies. Most of the cases brought have been dismissed on technicalities, making most consumer protection lawyers shy away, always seeking the lower-hanging fruit.
No one wants to face a federal judge when the other side has billions in defense funds and the ability to destroy the same judge online with an army of bots and fact-checkers. Because of this, some states, including a new Florida and Texas law, are trying to force the original intent of Section 230 at a state level. In other words, if Meta thinks it can choose to create, alter, or mislabel content as opposed to providing users a way to remove or block “smut” (like X does), these state courts won’t give them the same warm reception that Facebook has allegedly been getting in the Northern District of California.
Such content created by others is protected as free speech from the government (you can’t sue the platform for defamation for what another person said or did online.) But the now drunk with power and arrogant Meta thinks it can censor anything it wants and not be held accountable. A law that was passed in 1996 to protect users from smut is now used as a bludgeon to batter users with false, misleading, and often anti-competitive content.
Now, a person like former President Trump, your family members, or a parent complaining about school board censorship can be readily destroyed by Meta’s equivalent of the “thought police.” We know this was never the intent of Section 230, not by a longshot. Just because a few lower courts and the Ninth Circuit got it wrong doesn’t mean it’s right. However, no executive order can fix this, and Meta and its co-conspirator instrumentalities in its revolving door govt employment scheme should be held liable.
Lawyers of the world must unite before data privacy, and everything else about honest people are canceled in favor of websites and services that are nothing less or more than state actors and instrumentalities working against We the People.
Have you ever seen a post flagged on Meta’s platforms with a warning about ‘false news’ or ‘misinformation’?
Of course, you have. And it might have read something like this:
“This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)”
When you see this travesty, what’s your first thought? Do you accept the fact check at face value or start questioning the validity of the labeling process? If you’re in the latter category, you aren’t alone, especially with YouTube algorithms. Like many others, you might have picked up the scent of something that might not be as it seems, something more like an Orwellian twist where slavery is freedom.
In this article, we will help you uncover the layers of deception beneath Meta’s
“fact-checking” and how this relates to the legal shield of the Content Decency Act, referred to as Section 230.
Let’s Take a Look at a Deceptive Fact Check and Punitive Action Taken By Internet Platforms Insta-Facebook-Meta
Within several hours of posting my three-part Sue Meta Under Section 230 series on Instagram under the user @themichaelehline, I was notified that my account had been throttled for 90 days. The catch is, like other complaints I am hearing, Meta is targeting older posts but achieving the same result: banning my account while appearing perfectly fair.
Other users who followed me or shared the content also received a warning that they would be punished as well. Several users immediately unfollowed me, and an attorney friend for almost 15 years accused me of “disinfo” since there was a “fact check.” Meta’s action here has severely damaged my reputation.
Note That I am PUNISHED for an Old Post, Not the Post Hostile to Meta.
So I wanted to expose just how ridiculous the fact checks are, to begin with, and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Facebook and most social sites besides X are pushing a self-serving agenda, making them just as liable as any other publisher or purveyor of false, misleading or defamatory information published by one person about another.
In my experience, within hours of me posting videos about Section 230 and the unfair way social media companies have escaped its proper enforcement, an ancient post of mine was flagged as “false.” Of course, my account was throttled.
One of the videos I posted on Instagram started my fall from grace.
As you can see, rather than outright remove my videos, all of a sudden, Meta moved to find my account “in violation” of its bullshit policies that can be interpreted ANY WAY Meta wants while receiving US government protections under Section 230. Watch Part 3 to get an idea of why.
Example for The Fake and Misleading FACT CHECK:
Our Post, a Parody, Says, “Awake Yet?”
It pokes fun at many posts over the years and anecdotal doomsayers but NEVER mentions the word “scientists,” etc. It’s having fun about taxes going up and predictions about doomsday being exaggerated.
Of course, since Meta has taken it upon itself to decide what the truth is and isn’t, as well as what reality is or isn’t, they went ahead and “hired” their surrogate, or “instrumentality,” in this case, the Democrat fringe group, ClimateFedback.Org.
Here is the title of their “Independent Fact Check.”
“Scientists didn’t announce impending environmental catastrophes every decade since the 1970s.”
As you can see, nothing in the image says anything about scientists. It’s clear that Meta and the current US administration want to create a false impression of scientific consensus, as they did during the pandemic by silencing at least one Nobel Laureate who disagreed with mRNA tech to treat viruses as “fringe.” So much so that they assumed facts that were not in evidence to create a strike against my user account. Their appeals process is equally absurd.
This is improper. As soon as Meta enters the business of thought policing, its goals, intent, and everything else are called into question. It can not claim it is not a publisher under Section 230(c)(1), let alone pretend its motives as a “Good Samaritan” are free from judicial or citizen oversight.
Let’s get into this a little more. First off, the fact check labels are designed to and DO disparage and block users who share it ideally fits the descriptions of unfair business practices, as well as false and deceptive business practices, NOT just defamation, as will be discussed.
META: More Than Just A Platform – Communications Decency Act?
Let’s begin by understanding the essence of the issue. Section 230, or 47 U.S.C. § 230, is a provision in the Communications Decency Act 1996. It’s purpose? To protect online platforms from liability for content posted by their users (Originally kiddie porn and adult porn from being seen by kids.) It was assumed social media was acting as a Good Samaritan to protect the public from “smut.” But if it did take action, ANY action other than providing users a block button, for example, Meta’s Good Faith, was always at issue. Getting this so far?
Online Sex Trafficking Act, Etc.
Both lawmakers and presidents started growing weary of Section 230 and internet platforms, especially the one with hard-core political activist Yoel Roth in charge of “trust” and child sexual abuse material. In 2018, two significant pieces of legislation were passed – the Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA) and the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA).
Effect of Child Sexual Abuse Material Laws?
These laws altered aspects of Section 230, implying that platforms can now be held responsible for advertisements about prostitution posted by third parties. The primary objective of these changes was to grant authorities a more accessible pathway to prosecute and control these activities.
But as Meta and social media strengthened their revolving door partnership with the FBI and other US cabinet-level agencies, it appears that smut is now anything one political party or platform doesn’t like when it does not serve their financial or political interests.
Put, as a matter of law, Section 230 treats Meta not as a publisher or speaker but merely as a platform hosting user-generated content. This means they’re ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE shielded from legal ramifications from their users’ actions.
This seems reasonable until you peel back the layers and see Meta’s actions in play in harming users they disagree with politically or compete with financially. You know, they’ve taken action whenever Meta uses their perceived protections under Section 230 to label, classify, or unfairly compete with a content creator. They transform themselves from being a passive, interactive computer service/provider content provider (a passive platform) to an information content provider (an active player). Meta is now promoting one user or their content over another, for better or worse.
“Actions from Meta can result in a triable issue of material fact where motives, including bias, monetary, or political motives, can be questioned.”
So, it seems we have much more than just a platform to scrutinize. It may be time to reexamine Meta’s role and the use (or misuse) of Section 230.
Now that we’ve peeled back some initial layers of this issue, let’s dig deeper into what exactly transpires when you see a post flagged by Meta.
You might notice a notification stating: “This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”
The first reaction might be to trust the fact check implicitly, right? But is everything as it seems?
Consider this: sometimes, a post is labeled as false or misleading and has no semblance to the original fact check conducted. It’s bizarre. But it’s more than just odd—it feels a bit like manipulation. The fact checker presumes specific facts, not even discussed in the original meme or post, labels it as false, and then curbs the account of the person who posted it.
Does this strike a chord with historical instances of censorship, such as those exhibited by the Nazis, KGB, or Stasi?
Yet Meta attempts to deflect any backlash or legal repercussions, using Section 230 as a shield. They argue that fact-checkers are independent entities despite being employed by Meta. They claim this allows them to introduce a layer of objectivity to the fact-checking process. But can this claim hold water when such fact-checkers have the power (given them by the all-powerful Zuck) to suppress content and restrict accounts?
In light of such behavior, the line between being a neutral content platform and a content provider isn’t just blurred—it becomes almost invisible. How so? Well, Meta doesn’t just provide the platform for users’ content. It also assumes the role of a user on its platform and employs “independent” fact checkers, many of whom are far-left organizations aligned heavily with Zuck’s political viewpoints.
Meta can now influence viewer sentiment and control what information goes public – a power far beyond that of a mere content platform. Public schools, especially in California, may soon use these biased absurdities as official facts and reasons to trust or distrust someone. (See Newsom’s Section 587.)
Case in point: Jason Fyk’s Section 230 videos. While sharing his views on Meta’s content manipulation, Fyk uncovered an apparent complex web of deceptive practices by the social media behemoth. From ‘shadow-banning’ to misinterpretation of facts, Fyk’s videos expose Meta’s actions that definitely raise eyebrows for anyone advocating for transparency and freedom of speech. In his case, his hundred-million-dollar PLUS company competed with Meta for paid ad space that he was generating organically.
Meta took down his millions of followers, destroying his online presence. Ultimately, after Fyk transferred the rights to his content to a paying competitor, Meta re-hosted the content, even though it allegedly violated the Meta Terms of Service.
Many of Meta’s advertisement-supported business models rely on user engagement. Hence, meta-algorithms often promote false, divisive, and harmful content to their users. In this case, their entire fact-checker process is clearly deceptive and designed to portray many publishers and users in a false light.
Meta Is Backdooring
I agree that 230(c)(1) was used as a backdoor for 230(c)(2) cases like Jason Fyk’s. Judge Alsup’s recent opinion below proved Fyk correct, but he still got blown out, and Meta is still free to destroy lives (in my opinion).
What is False Light Defamation?
False light defamation occurs when someone is portrayed misleadingly or falsely in a way that could be offensive or objectionable to a reasonable person, even if the information itself is factually accurate. These fact-check labels do just that. Even if the labels were correct, Meta has become a publisher, and the propriety-GOOD FAITH-of its actions in removing “otherwise objectionable content” must now be decided by a trier of fact under Section 230(c)(2)(A). In other words, META does not get to settle allegations of bad faith, “action voluntarily taken in good faith,” the JURY does!
So, what does this all mean?
It’s time to question:
Is Section 230, a law put forth to protect freedom of speech on online platforms, being weaponized to serve as a tool for misinformation and bias? Your thoughts matter in this debate. Is it high time we called for more accountability from such platforms?
One thing’s for sure: This exploration has only just begun. With a court unimpressed by tautologies and shiny objects, Meta will soon be out of the unfair competition business and back into its role as a social media content provider platform. Their job is not to label and restrict communications using the subterfuge of independent fact-checkers, either.
X/Elon Musk Got it right with Community Notes.
X uses “Community Notes” to afford protection under Section 230. Community Notes are harmonious with Section 230(c)(2)(B), which states:
“(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]“
Most people feel that as long as social media sites take censorship actions that favor President Biden and his son and also take actions against his political opponents, only a US court can right these wrongs. Meta is unilaterally TAKING PUBLISHER actions itself and dismissing lawsuits at whim. The revolving door employment scheme it has fostered with DOD, FBI, and even CIA demonstrates a pattern and probable goal of undue influence over policymaking that must be investigated.
Meta is supposed “…to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]“
In other words, Meta is not supposed to defame its political and financial competitors as fake, false, or misleading and then get protected for lying and unfair business practices. It is believed to allow USERS and information content providers to MUTE or offer a block button (technical means) or a chalkboard to share notes! All it will take is one good judge to end these tautological shenanigans with technology website companies like Meta. Either way, Fyk lost his case, and it could just be his lawyers made the wrong arguments, as did the lawyers in the Stossel case, by stipulating Meta’s definitions as the rule of the case. Either way, I have no skin in the game, and I DO NOT handle these cases, nor have I ever discussed the case with Fyk’s legal team.
Are you ready to file a lawsuit? Make sure you are ready!
“Thomas Jefferson complained about the verbosity of statutes, their endless tautologies, and “their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaid.” – Source LibQuotes.
Are you ready for a favorable ruling? Please like, subscribe to, and follow us on the social media platforms that have not banned us yet. We look forward to your communications and discussing any new rules, appeals, or lawsuits.
