It's not that there's no justice... it's just expensive.

[Waterglass]

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?