> a number of instances where I was asked to read relevant portions of the terms of service out loud for the judge (designed more than anything to humiliate sin

> a number of instances where I was asked to read relevant portions of the terms of service out loud for the judge (designed more than anything to humiliate since it was already readily apparent that I could read), Doesn't understand what that court stenographer does, I see. (Also, quite willing to impute intent where none lies.) > Though at that point I should have asked him how often he beat his wife, I was too shocked to think of it. Should be if he still beat his wife. > Google has more access to information about people than virtually any company on the planet, yet despite its vast resources, it found it more prudent to fabricate disparaging innuendo about me before a judge. The sole purpose was to damage my credibility. <Innuendo about Google> "HOW DARE GOOGLE USE WHAT I PERCEIVE TO BE INNUENDO!" > but I'd like to think that more than being a simply typographical error, the judge was conceding that I had a point. There is no law explicitly stating so, but there was no need for Google to behave in as draconian a manner as it did throughout the entire process of investigating the circumstances surrounding my account termination. Off the deep end, past innuendo, into the pool of magical thoughts. > The fact that it conducts smear campaigns against small business owners The only smear campaign I've seen is the one he's perpetrated against himself (somewhere in the vicinity of "social media elite") and Google. > Google (presumably, since no one else knew) even notified bloggers and/or The Huffington Post of the appeals court ruling Yeah, I hate those public court records and those journalistic bloggers. Stupid Google. As loose with his writing as his morals, this guy. (Muphry's law fans, come and get me.)