dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Wew lads, the fucking absolute state of this board.

OK all you anons who are legal illiterates, this is pure plebbit tier shillage to embarrass anons here.

First of all, it is utterly irrelevant if this pothole shitter has filed this paper work with a Federal District Court, or one of those fascade like and vaguely effeminate Eurofag courts.

You can file a law suit claiming that your gardener leaves lawn clippings in purposely constructed black magic runes designed to make you drink Round Up!

What matters are the plaintiffs, their standing, the appropriateness of the defendents, and whether or not torts and/or negligence has been credibly shown to have occurred due to defendants actions.

Firstly, outside of the pothole shitting poo, the rest of the plantiffs listed are not plaintiffs. It is just an unsubstantiated list of mostly foreign "groups of people" that have no official status. Furthermore, applicant atty does not show that he has any official legal agreement with any official organization or "CLASS" of individuals to proceed into a US court on their behalf. Otherwise atty's wouldn't need to do all the leg work and advertising to sue Monsanto over Glyphophate. An atty could just say "For all those people the world over who have used this stuff". The plaintiff list is garbage.

This alone is sufficient for a judge to dismiss the case by request of defendants council before the official opening date of the trial.

Next are the utterly stupid complaints.

Law suits for damages are filed based on both the seriousness of the malfesance/negligence of the defendant and the significance/size of the remedy necessary to either make whole, repair damages, or to mitigate the burden of further harms/costs/losses to the applicant.

In our courts, we follow the UCC (universal commercial code). These rules identify/define the actions that a defendant can be alledged to have committed and the types of remedies available to the applicants if their allegations are upheld. Broadly speaking, the actions fall under Breach of some sort of legal defined agreement or trust (breach of contract), Tort (actions intentionally taken to harm applicants life or property) and Negligence (actions defendant took that caused the harm, that defendant SHOULD HAVE known carried a reasonable risk of harm [not leaving a wet floor sign on a recently mopped floor in an area open to the general public].) Negligence can be minor, which protects the defendant with respect to responsibility to the damages, to criminally serious, exposing defendants to damages and penalties (in civil court).

So lets look at number 1. "Misuse of artificial intelligence, cybernetics…blah blah blah"

Sorry folks, but there is no civil legal issue here, and there are no laws in the US Code defining the criminal misuse of any of these technologies. Further, while courts prefer that it's officers use concise, technical language to lay out a case, even if we allow for some linguistic style, it is the applicant's duty to show each specific Breach, Tort, or Act of Negligence that defendant provably committed and the specific harm that resulted from that act. Applicant does none of this. Everything is vague. For example, artificial intelligence is merely a bit of jargon that deals with computers attempting to solve problems not specifically defined by the programmer. You can't claim shit with this. Applicant needs to identify a UNIQUE AI project being used to cause harm, not some vague misuse of an undefined category.

The second one is even more idiot tier. "Endagering the human race…". Outside of SPECTRE's relentless EBIL PLANS, this is not an actionable claim. Harms and Remedies in lawsuits MUST identify a specific harm causing specific damages to a specific person by a specific defendant. This is garbage of the #NOREF #NODEF divide by 0 and multiply by infinity variety.

We now have a completely seperate and valid instance where defendant can expect the judge to dismiss the case.

The third reason is that applicant's vague list of technologies in no way specifies ANY of the suits defendants. Applicant can't claim Google is a defendant because Google writes AI's for various internal and external apps, just because applicant believes SOME TYPE of non specific AI caused some unknown harm. This is a third independant reason for defendant to request and win a motion to dismiss.

Seriously anons notableing this shit over and over is now way past full retard. Think logically.