Login

**Maxmars** · 06-08-2024, 09:23 PM

In our universe, there is a door, we live behind it. A peek through the door will show you how we have monetized justice.

From ArsTechnica: Google avoids jury trial by sending $2.3 million check to US government
Subtitled: Google gets a bench trial after sending unexpected check to Justice Department.
Google has achieved its goal of avoiding a jury trial in one antitrust case after sending a $2.3 million check to the US Department of Justice. Google will face a bench trial, a trial conducted by a judge without a jury, after a ruling today that the preemptive check is big enough to cover any damages that might have been awarded by a jury.

So a Federal judge decided that "That ought to do!" to cover any damages claim. The judge decided that.

Removing the element of damages from any suit such as this makes it "acceptable" to waive the jury trail (since ostensibly, the jury would only have input as to damages.) Google has managed to mitigate their liability by offering up an amount "deemed" to be "enough."

But wait there's more...

The payment was unusual, but so was the US request for a jury trial because antitrust cases are typically heard by a judge without a jury.

I wonder why that is...

The US argued that a jury should rule on damages because US government agencies were overcharged for advertising.

The real story is that 8 states brought this suit against Google (over a year ago) and 11 more have joined since. It appears that this wasn't some outrageous bill... it was many, many outrageous bills charged to a whole lot of state governments. The US legal folks "opposed" the summary elimination of the jury trial... They noted that the amount spontaneously provided by Google was far less that their estimates of damages... and further

... that "the check it delivered did not actually compensate the United States for the full extent of its claimed damages" and that "the unilateral offer of payment was improperly premised on Google's insistence that such payment 'not be construed' as an admission of damages."

The government's damages expert calculated damages that were "much higher" than the amount cited by Google, the US filing said. In last week's filing, the higher damages amount sought by the government was redacted.

"Redacted..." I wonder why that is? Remember, we're talking about over $100 million in business from these 'government' entities since 2019.

The US government lawsuit said that federal agencies bought over $100 million in advertising since 2019 and aimed to recover treble damages for Google's alleged overcharges on those purchases.

Somebody help me out... 3 x 100 million is what now?

But the government narrowed its claims to the ad purchases of just eight agencies, lowering the potential damages amount.

I guess you gotta "help a guy out" right? Justice for the megacorp... it's so gentle, like a baby's bottom.

Google sent the check in mid-May. While the amount wasn't initially public, Google said it contained "every dollar the United States could conceivably hope to recover under the damages calculation of the United States' own expert." Google also said it "continues to dispute liability and welcomes a full resolution by this Court of all remaining claims in the Complaint."

The remainder of the article is a worthy read if you follow just how justice works for those "in the club." I mean "Anti-Trust" is a criminal matter, no? DOJ... it almost looked like you were trying to redeem yourselves... almost.

**Maxmars**

Another entry in the media coverage of the "Google doesn't have to face a jury trial" story.

From Associated Press: Judge rather than jury will render verdict in upcoming antitrust trial

But the government’s right to a jury trial was based largely on the fact that it sought monetary damages to compensate federal agencies that purchased online ads and claimed they were overcharged as a result of Google’s anticompetitive conduct. The dollar values associated with those claims, though, were relatively small — less than $750,000 — and far less significant than other remedies sought by the government, which might include forcing Google to sell off parts of its advertising technology.

As a result, Google last month took the extraordinary step of writing the government a check for more than $2 million — the $750,000 in damages claimed by the government multiplied by three because antitrust cases allow for trebled damages.

Now here we see AP tweaking the narrative, with no mention of the fact that somewhere along the way, someone in the DOJ ...

"... narrowed its claims to the ad purchases of just eight agencies, lowering the potential damages amount."

Why would they do that? Why would they "pave the way" for this maneuver by Google?

Mountain View, California-based Google argued that writing the check rendered moot any government claim of monetary damages and eliminated the need for a jury trial.

At a hearing Friday in Alexandria, Justice Department lawyers argued that the check Google wrote was insufficient to moot the damages claim, prompting a technical discussion over how experts would try to quantify the damages.

Brinkema ruled in favor of Google. She said the amount of Google’s check covered the highest possible amount the government had sought in its initial filings. She likened receipt of the money, which was paid unconditionally to the government regardless of whether the tech giant prevailed in its arguments to strike a jury trial, as equivalent to “receiving a wheelbarrow of cash.”

But it wasn't "unconditional" at all:

"...the unilateral offer of payment was improperly premised on Google's insistence that such payment 'not be construed' as an admission of damages."

A fact which was featured prominently in the DOJs response to the court. AP must have "missed that."

So why would the judge reportedly reframe the Google money the DOJ received as "...regardless of whether the tech giant prevailed?"

In its court papers, Google also argued that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to a civil suit brought by the government. The government disagreed with that assertion but said it would not seek a ruling from the judge on that constitutional question.

Now why would the government NOT seek a ruling on the application of the constitutional issue of trial by jury in a criminal case?

Maybe it's just me, but things are not appearing wholesome as they should over at the DOJ... and Google gets to declare unequivocally... "this is not an admission of guilt."

Ah justice... where have you gone?

Karl12 · 06-10-2024, 07:01 AM

(06-09-2024, 02:42 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Ah justice... where have you gone?

Good question and thanks for posting this thread.

Could it be because Google IS the government?

Apparently it would be more of a surprise NOT to find a major Silicon Valley company connected to the US military (or US intelligence agencies) one way or another.

Beer

**theshadowknows** · 06-13-2024, 10:33 PM

This is our one thousandth thread Biggrin

FlyingClayDisk · 06-15-2024, 06:03 AM

Well, justice is more than just 'expensive', it is also very much not 'blind' (as the colloquial phrase goes). Justice should be 'blind', if there truly was "justice" in the jurisprudence sense, but it is noticeably absent today.

What I mean by this is, today's justice depends not only on how much money you have, but also who you are.

Case in point, when an individual who should be executed for treason and espionage (of the very highest order) is magically set free to walk on the streets by order of the POTUS. This is not justice. When this same individual is subsequently granted a 10 year "Tourist Visa" for the United States, even though they are already a US Citizen, in order to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in taxes...this is not justice! Not only were they not prosecuted and then jailed, they were given a prize. This is not justice.

You may be wondering who this person is, and there's a pretty good possibility you've never heard their name, but I assure you, you know "of" him. You know of him from movies such as Pretty Woman, Natural Born Killers, Man on Fire, Falling Down and Mr. & Mrs. Smith, among countless others.

Now, I would love to tell you who this person is, and who the POTUS was who let him go (and Secretary of State who brought it to him), and the whole backstory about nuclear weapons triggers, highly enriched uranium, theft, campaign donations, espionage, entire countries who betrayed their own allies, racism and countless other things almost too unimaginable to comprehend, but alas I cannot. Why? Well, because you see, in order to do this I would have to stray into forbidden territory here...politics. (sigh) The only thing I can say is, trust it is all very real. And the most aggravating part of all is, they laughed in all of our faces while doing it; they didn't even care. They knew us 'peons' couldn't do a damn thing about it. And then the whole thing got filed away in some file boxes stashed conveniently in a mighty warehouse full of millions of other boxes just like it, never to be seen again.

Regardless, justice is more than just 'expensive'; it is all seeing, and twisted at will to suit agendas which have nothing at all to do with justice and everything to do with money and power.

P.S. - Oh, and BTW...the only people who got scolded in the whole ordeal noted above were the intelligence community agents who brought the whole matter to their superiors and insisted the perpetrators be arrested, prosecuted and jailed. The only ones...threatened with their careers were they to ever mention even a word of it. The only good news, if there ever was any, is someone eventually found those boxes, and they even wrote a book about it.

Waterglass · 06-15-2024, 07:21 AM

(06-09-2024, 02:42 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Another entry in the media coverage of the "Google doesn't have to face a jury trial" story.

From Associated Press: Judge rather than jury will render verdict in upcoming antitrust trial

But the government’s right to a jury trial was based largely on the fact that it sought monetary damages to compensate federal agencies that purchased online ads and claimed they were overcharged as a result of Google’s anticompetitive conduct. The dollar values associated with those claims, though, were relatively small — less than $750,000 — and far less significant than other remedies sought by the government, which might include forcing Google to sell off parts of its advertising technology.

As a result, Google last month took the extraordinary step of writing the government a check for more than $2 million — the $750,000 in damages claimed by the government multiplied by three because antitrust cases allow for trebled damages.

Now here we see AP tweaking the narrative, with no mention of the fact that somewhere along the way, someone in the DOJ ...

"... narrowed its claims to the ad purchases of just eight agencies, lowering the potential damages amount."

Why would they do that? Why would they "pave the way" for this maneuver by Google?

Mountain View, California-based Google argued that writing the check rendered moot any government claim of monetary damages and eliminated the need for a jury trial.

At a hearing Friday in Alexandria, Justice Department lawyers argued that the check Google wrote was insufficient to moot the damages claim, prompting a technical discussion over how experts would try to quantify the damages.

Brinkema ruled in favor of Google. She said the amount of Google’s check covered the highest possible amount the government had sought in its initial filings. She likened receipt of the money, which was paid unconditionally to the government regardless of whether the tech giant prevailed in its arguments to strike a jury trial, as equivalent to “receiving a wheelbarrow of cash.”

But it wasn't "unconditional" at all:

"...the unilateral offer of payment was improperly premised on Google's insistence that such payment 'not be construed' as an admission of damages."

A fact which was featured prominently in the DOJs response to the court. AP must have "missed that."

So why would the judge reportedly reframe the Google money the DOJ received as "...regardless of whether the tech giant prevailed?"

In its court papers, Google also argued that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not apply to a civil suit brought by the government. The government disagreed with that assertion but said it would not seek a ruling from the judge on that constitutional question.

Now why would the government NOT seek a ruling on the application of the constitutional issue of trial by jury in a criminal case?

Maybe it's just me, but things are not appearing wholesome as they should over at the DOJ... and Google gets to declare unequivocally... "this is not an admission of guilt."

Ah justice... where have you gone?

Back in the "good" ole days I was inteviewed internationally on CNN. Back then it ran for a week and had several "takes" I was asked as to what I thought about the USDOJ's handling of the case. I responded "you mean the US Department of Injustice"

I said that prior to my partner committing suicide after being interviewed by "the Dingle Committee" . He had the written evidence and they lost all of it after he and his attorney turned it over to them. So he checked out.

Recall Trump trashing a "Dingle" while he was in office?