Breach of Contract

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Colorado and resides in Denver. P is an independent consultant and owner of company incorporated in the state of Colorado and located in Denver, Colorado.

D resides in the State of California.  Facebook, Inc. is incorporated under the State of California. D created this online forum to connect the world and give free expression.

D disables user account without warning.  The Amount in Controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, is more than the minimum specified by law

FACTS

In 2004, P found Facebook as a college student. The platform was a novel thing back in those days. He signs up and right away starts connecting with classmates and H.S. friends, family, and expressing himself.

Ten years later P, starts a business to impact millions and help people realize their dreams.

P has always been a political active and actively taking classes through independent service providers offering business courses and has joined several supports groups, P uses social media to also learn how to sell, market, conduct business, and stay in contact with friends and family.

Suddenly, in 2019 P tries to log in to Facebook and was immediately prevented from accessing her account. P appeals the process, only to be denied appeal. Facebook send info on policy violations: hate speech and connecting to terrorist groups. P epresses himself civilly and is respect and careful with his words. P also doesn't belong to any violent or criminal groups.   

Facebook has labeled P's business unsafe and his user account has been disabled.  Facebook also alleges that P has threatened to harm others or promoted self-destructive behavior.  

Facebook also alleges that P has singled out or used hate speech based on race, gender, etc.

P is a black transgender male.

Facebook alleges that P used graphic content that displays violence against people or animals’ depiction of sexual assault.  

P is flipping out now. Because his content is for clean and pure.

P shares content that displays families in a loving way living life to the fullest and serving others. Sometimes P shares his Jewish faith.

P is passionate, loves coaching people on marketing and ideas about branding. He inspires others to learn along with him and shares books about business.  

Has D harmed P?

P would demands $200,000 for emotional distress, reinstatement of her account, and at least $200,00 for advertising and doing business on Facebook platform.

 FIRST COUNT

(Breach of Contract)

A plaintiff who seeks to invoke a Colorado court's personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must comply with both Colorado's long-arm statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124 (2009), and the due process requirements of the United States Constitution. Colorado's long-arm statute extends jurisdiction to the maximum limits allowed by due process.

Colorado's long-arm statute extends the jurisdiction of Colorado courts to the maximum limit permitted by the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions. If jurisdiction is consistent with due process, then Colorado's long-arm statute authorizes jurisdiction over the defendant. Colorado's long-arm statute confers upon Colorado courts personal jurisdiction over any person who or entity that creates certain contacts with Colorado by, among other things, transacting business within the state or committing a tortious act within the state, either personally or through an agent. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-1-124(1)(a)-(b). Giduck v. Niblett, 2014 COA 86, 408 P.3d 856

The elements of a contract are:  A contract existed, Performance by or some justification for nonperformance, failure to perform the contract by the defendant, and resulting in damages to the plaintiff. 

Facebook gave some justification for nonperformance of the contract.      

Facebook didn’t give notice that it was going to disabled P's user account.

As a result of this exchange, it seems that Facebook had a moral duty to perform as promised and it broke the promise. 

Facebook failed to perform the contract, which resulted in harming P. P has grown His network over time to over 50,000 friends and family, customers, and business associates.  

Mark Zuckerberg created a social network for the purpose of connecting the whole world. He has said he is committed to free speech and a robust political discourse. 

SECOND COUNT

(Negligence)

Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in paragraph 1-25 of the complaint.

Mark is the creator of a digital online platform that connects the world and P as user of facebook has enjoyed engagement from Mark’s social platform. Injuries were sustained from Mark’s deliberate unreasonable actions to disable him account with providing notice. P's injuries were a result of Marks’s negligence.

Mark failed to live up to the standard of due care as owner of a global online platform.

Mark owes it to the citizens of America to exercise reasonable due care in the conduct of our own affairs. Mark’s duty does not require that he avoid all injury to others, but he needs to avoid injuring others by carelessness.

Negligence is defined as the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considers which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. Blyth v. Proprietors of Birmingham Waterworks, 156 Eng. Rep. 1047, 1049 (1856)

Mark Zuckerberg is not a model of propriety and common sense, and a person who always exercises sound judgment and acts with “ordinary prudence.”  

Mark should be held to the highest standard of care the law provides because Mark’s company is a global social platform connecting not only citizens of the United States but citizens of other countries. And before it gets out of hand, Mark is interested ONLY in himself and not others. Thus, the courts should regulate his affairs.

Mark is not a reasonable person because he has not weighed the foreseeable risks of injury that his conduct has impose on the global community.  

For example, giving the world access to free expression when most countries don’t have a right to the free exercise of speech imposes a risk that opinions will spread like wildfire across the globe. It may be reasonable to impose that risk to prevent a brush fire of speech from spreading but to amplify the suppressed voices across the globe.

Similarly, the rapid release of a large volume of ideas from one user to another imposes a risk of chipping away at another countries rule of law thereby causing damage or personal injury.

Mark Zuckerberg is negligent, and Facebook is under his control and direction.

Mark’s conduct is the cause of injury to P and his livelihood. Disabling the user account without giving proper notice.

Mark owes a duty of care to it's users.

Users have no legal duty to act to protect another and therefore, and are not liable for failing to do so.

Facebook is infringing on P's individual liberty by coercing P to monitor his groups and reporting activity he has no duty to report. P set the rules in his groups and enforces only those rules that violate his community standards. 

P seeks damages for loss of consortium. As an independent consultant P has lost the ability to relate to Company as a result of physical injury which prevents him from enjoying the usual satisfaction of a business relationship.  P is seriously harmed by Mark’s negligence. P's injury may interfere drastically with his ability to relate to Company, customers, upline, friends and family, ability to fully market services online, manage business page and business groups created. There is an emotional loss that Mark caused by his negligence. 

THIRD COUNT

(Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause & Due Process)

 A procedural due process claim requires proof of two elements: (1) the existence of a property or liberty interest that was deprived and (2) deprivation of that interest without due process. These elements derive from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.

Where Facebook disabled two accounts without issuing a notice against alleged violations of its policy barring P from Facebook property P's First Amendment. 

P has a liberty interest in accessing his user profile.

 Facebook disabled all accounts connected to P. Facebook deprived P of right to due process by failing to give me proper notice. 

Facebook deprived P of right to business interest without due process. 

Facebook violated the constitution by depriving me of P's life, liberty and pursuit of property without due process of the law.

Facebook alleges to be a private company committed to the freedom of expression and speech of its users.  But Facebook denied P of his right to freely express his views and conduct business online without due process.

Facebook has denied P the right to access 25 years’ worth of pictures and memories made on its social media platform.

Facebook deprived P's life without due process.

If the state permits Facebook to exercise what is clearly governmental power, then the activity of Facebook should be treated as state action for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946)

Monopolizing all governmental functions within the digital community, Facebook is operating as a governmental entity and is, therefore, subject to the same First Amendment restraints that apply to state and local governments.

P seeks damages for loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. 

FOURTH COUNT

(Freedom of Speech)

 The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects more than simply the right to speak freely. It is well established that it safeguards a wide spectrum of activities, including the right to distribute and sell expressive materials, the right to associate with others, and, most importantly to this case, the right to receive information and ideas. These various rights, though not explicitly articulated in either the Federal or Colorado Constitution, are necessary to the successful and uninhibited exercise of the specifically enumerated right to "freedom of speech."

P is an independent consultant and a political advocate. Engaging in political discourse, selling products, contacting his customers directly via messenger, posting, and taking photos, connecting to friends and family conducting live videos, sharing in a meaningful way.  Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-106(1)(a) because sharing legal products and posting pictures will not likely incite a reasonable person to immediate physical violence.

P is also active in his local political party and actively engages in civil discourse with friends, local leaders, on his wall or on voicing his dissent of their opinions in a respectful manner on Facebook does not constitute disorderly conduct under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-106(1)(a) because disagreeing on something because it is considered sensitive to one person would not likely incite a reasonable person to immediate physical violence or inflict direct physical harm.

Facebook alleges that P’s content displays violence to people and animals.

Facebook alleges that P used Hate Speech. 

Facebook is violating the right of free speech and free expression and discriminating against users. 

Content-based restrictions on political speech are subject to strict scrutiny. Facebook is not allowed to punish people for content stemming from it’s opposition to the message. For example, Black Lives Matters is both pure speech and symbolic speech and both are protected under the First Amendment. You can agree and disagree with Black Lives Matter and Facebook cannot punish people for disagreeing and voicing their opinion against this narrative as hate speech. A user’s expressive activity qualifies as speech, and the full protection of the First Amendment right.

On the one hand black lives matter is a true statement and black lives matter do matter, but Black Lives Matter is also an organization that supports Marxism. And disagreeing with the organization because you disagree with the message is protected. So, P can agree to support black people but disagree to support the organization. Therefore, disagreeing with the narrative is expressing a view of the organization and thus is protected speech and NOT hate speech.

Facebook invites its users to invest in a political debate. Black Lives Matter is political advertising that invites its users to invest in a political debate. Black Lives Matter is a commercial label that may be inappropriate. Facebook owes a duty to its users that may disagree with this the commercial label Black Lives Matter.

Facebook is restricting content-based speech, and this is a very serious infringement of First Amendment liberties since Facebook is acting as a government agent and punishing people for content.

Facebook acting as a government agent online may not discriminate within a category of otherwise proscribable speech so as to favor some viewpoints or ideas over others.  If it does so, the First Amendment comes into play. 

Facebook is discriminating and favoring some viewpoints or ideas over others.  It’s very policy outlaws hate speech and is overbroad. Facebook, disabled P for speech that is protected in the First Amendment. P’s speech was not proscribable speech unprotected by the First Amendment. P does not use threat or obscenity. Therefore, Facebook is discriminating.  

As a general matter, the First Amendment protects an individual's "right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all." Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977). 

To state a compelled-speech claim, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) speech; (2) to which the speaker objects; that is (3) compelled by some governmental action. Cressman v. Thompson, 798 F.3d 938, 951 (10th Cir. 2015). As to the compulsion element, this court has held that "the governmental measure must punish, or threaten to punish, protected speech by governmental action that is regulatory, proscriptive, or compulsory in nature." Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277, 1290 (10th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted).

Facebook is punishing users protected speech by disabling P's account of 25 years. This platform has never threatened to punish before.

P alleges that he has a right to refuse to support Black Lives Matters or any of the like mottos because of religious, moral, or political objection to the motto. And Facebook cannot compel P or anyone to be an instrument for the state’s ideological message.  The right also extends to provide financial support for another’s speech, i.e. Black Lives Matter Organization.

Facebook is operating as a traditional public forum dedicated to the “free exchange of ideas.” Thus, the Facebook platform falls squarely in line with parks, streets, and sidewalk, which is being used for the purpose of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions. 

Therefore, the Facebook forum is a public facility dedicated to expressive activity and has the full protection of the First Amendment.  Facebook regulation on speech must be reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because it’s staff opposes the speaker's view.

Facebook does not maintain viewpoint neutrality. And is denying P's access on the basis of the favored or disfavored status of any particular message. Facebook is limited to its ability to regulate private expression.

Therefore, P should demand an award for damages that operate as a content-based restriction on speech.

FIFTH COUNT

(The Publication of Truthful, Lawfully Obtained Information)

Facebook is a monopoly.

Facebook alleges it’s a publisher and wants to claim the right to restrict information on the basis of truth. 

This right isn’t absolute. There is a potential for infringement and subject to strict scrutiny.

When an individual's personal information is relevant to issues of public significance, its truthful dissemination - particularly when already in the public domain and lawfully obtained -triggers exacting First Amendment scrutiny under Supreme Court precedent. Specifically, if an individual publishes lawfully obtained, truthful information about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication of the information, absent a need of the highest order. Any law that seeks to meet that need must be narrowly tailored.

Facebook is punishing and restricting information that is already in the public domain.

P has shared content on Facebook that is truthful and relevant to issues of public significance, Facebook may not punish publication of the information, absent a need of the highest order.

SIXTH COUNT

(Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act 1996)

The Communications Decency Act was signed into law and became effective on February 8, 1996. Section 230 of the Act, codified at 47 U.S.C.S. § 230, titled Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, represents an initial federal effort to define the appropriate scope of federal regulation of the Internet.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), 47 U.S.C.S. § 230, immunizes providers of interactive computer services against liability arising from content created by third parties. Section 230(c)(1) provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

Mark Zuckerberg and other platforms (google, youtube, twitter) is given free rein over the internet. This section of the statute is unconstitutional. 

SEVENTH COUNT

(Antitrust Laws)

An antitrust claim has three elements: (1) a violation of antitrust law; (2) injury and causation; and (3) damages. The second element of an antitrust claim - commonly referred to as antitrust injury - requires an antitrust plaintiff to prove that its injury was, in fact, caused by the defendant's violation of the antitrust laws.

Facebook has violated the antitrust laws.

Writiten by a Self Taught Lawyer (Certified Paralegal)

Sept. 17, 2020