Clemons v. Google, Inc.

Filing 22

MOTION to Amend the Original Claim for Relief with Proposed time for Submission 1-15-18 by Richard Clemons. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(dvanm, )

United States District Court
Eastern District of Virginia
Richard demons

File no. 1:17-cv-00963

Plaintiff

Hon.

V

Google LLC,
Defendant

Motion to Amend The

Original Claim for Relief
With Proposed time for
Submission 1-15-18.
Now comes plaintiff pursuant to rule 15(a)(1)(b) and states an amendment
of the complaint is necessary in response to defendant's motion to dismiss.
The inception of the movement here by plaintiff is prefaced by a request
that this court take judicial notice that plaintiff while gifted in some aspects
of pleading, is nevertheless not a trained attorney and still unfinished in the
business of law school. Be that the case, he pleads the court to hold him to
less stringent standards than that of an attorney and allow the complaint to
proceed as the facts clearly state a claim for relief prayed under an
erroneous claim for relief Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972).

1) The defendant's filed a motion to dismiss and correctly aver that they
are immune from suit under title 2 of the SCA. They are wrong

however in the assertion that the complaint should be dismissed as a
matter of law when the facts stated clearly warrant judicial
intervention as a matter oi public policy- albeit against an erroneous

legal standard articulated by a non attorney litigant. Further, they
incorrectly assert plaintiff signed away his jurisdictional rights to bring
suit in this court pursuant to a form contract that is also void as a
matter of public policy.

2) Based on the facts, Google knew of the hijacking of this account as

they were informed repeatedly by plaintiff and took no steps to make
reasonable and even easy'steps to correct the issue^. Google then
aided the conversion of the' literary work when it refused to offer
reasonable identity theft/consumer protection procedures in accord
with federal law Rosetta Stone ltd v Google Inc., 676 f3rd 144 (9th
cir.2007)

3) Plaintiffs listed items do enjoy a sfaft/fory copyright under Nascent
Publishing by owner Thom Byxbe. This was done by contract signed
in 201 S.Google may terminate the account at issue but it may not
simply steal plaintiffs literary works and refuse to surrender them. It is
out right theft and a serious deprivation of plaintiffs ownership rights
as Google made false and deceptive advertisements/promises that

plaintiff relied on to his detriment contrary to 17 use 201 (a)^
4) Defendant's manufacturing of the website was built in violation of 17
use 1201(2)(a),(c) and is unlawful. Defendant is restrained by statute
from objecting to interrogatories and or subpoenas to further this fact
because plaintiff through his pleadings, has made a prima facie
showing that the allegation is true.
5) Plaintiff objects that the complete contract represented by Brittany
Araujo does not reflect the contract that plaintiff partially consented to
but that there does exist severability.
^The defendant's did make clear in their contract with plaintiff that "what belongs to you stays yours" and
that the limited license plaintiff granted Google for ygg purposes of his literary work established an
enforceable interstate agreement in excess of 75,000.

^ Indeed, defendant has not alleged in their contract or otherwise with plaintiff that their conversion of
plaintiff's property is in compliance with 17 USC 201(d).

6) Plaintiff also would amend the conaplaint to add demons Writing
Solutions Inc. as a party. Like the defendant, this entity was
incorporated in the State of Delaware in 2010 but doing business in
the State of Virginia at 211 N. Union, suite 100. Alexandria,
Virginia.20001. Plaintiff did not agree to litigate his corporate holdings
in the account in a forum selection agreement.^

Venue
7) Finally, it is against public policy that plaintiff be forced to sign away
venue when the defendant's state that plaintiff agreed to do so based on a
form contract.Defendant's have not showed that their convenience is

satisfied in California. Personal Jurisdiction is achieved by this court

because their place of business is registered in the state of Virginia 1875
Explorer St., Reston, Va. 20190. The defendant's accept legal

correspondence at this address and has staff attorney's on call at this
address.Conversely, plaintiff is poor, unfinished with school and
unemployed. He cannot afford transportation to California to participate in
one discovery-let alone stand against the huge economic resource against
a giant like google. A transfer of venue would take plaintiff away from his
local doctors who monitor his mental health on a weekly basis. Plaintiff

objects to a change of venue and there was no meeting of the minds in the
several clauses of the contract to suggest agreement with forum selection
outside the mandatory election venue clause of 28 use 1400, which
controls here-not 28 USC 1404(a) cited by defendant.

WHEREFORE based on the above, plaintiff prays the court deny
defendant's motion to dismiss and allow plaintiff to submit a formal motion
®Defendant's conduct will be shown in the amendment to be an unlawful restraint of plaintiffand CWS
Inc. to register clear business plans proposals and complex insurance-based products for trademark
protection.

The amendment will show that defendant's conduct obstructs plaintiffs and CWS's merchant's rights and

is obstructing plaintiffs ability complywith federal laws requiring the listing and divulgement of corporate
assets or the valuation thereof and that these violations obstructs the laws of both Virginia and the state
of Delaware.

and brief substantiating a claim for relief for violations as listed specifically
and by way of reference.

Respectfully Submitted,
Richard demons

1118 W. Broaj^st.
Falls Church/va. 22046
202-524-296 \

Proof of service

Plaintiff served a copy of the attachment on counsel at their listed place of
business via first class U.S. mail on 12-17-17, postage prepaid.