"We have the Evidence"
Easy to Understand
There is no other explanation
"Crooked Monster must be crushed"
Size does not matter
"It starts with a small crack in the ice"

Welcome to Our Lawsuit Against Crooks Website!


SYNONYMS; criminal, commits fraud, lawbreaker, offender, villain, delinquent, felon, convict, malefactor, culprit, wrongdoer, rogue, scoundrel, shyster, cheat, scam artist, swindler, racketeer, confidence trickster, snake oil salesman; thief, robber, burglar; informalshark, con man, con, jailbird, hood, yardbird; malfeasant.

Specifically. Facebook Inc.

The Story is this;

About the Small Claims Lawsuit.

It all started about two years go. I had been a Facebook member previously, had cancelled my account many years previously. About July of 2016, I decided to see if I could create a business venture utilizing Facebook's marketing programs. It was a "wall art" product, but soon realized that it would not work. Pricing of the product was the problem.

It was not Facebook's fault, as I did then, and still consider Facebook to be a valuable marketing tool, as well as great social tool for about everyone that are members. It is a valuable tool for positive and negative ventures. It was the negative side of the Facebook that caught my attention.

I remember placing in the "search" box, for the search term of Real Estate Indio California, and within days, just about everyplace I went on the Internet, there was an ad for Homes in Indio. It was comical at first, but it became irritating real fast. I even try, just for a test, placing the Facebook "key words" for other products and services, and yes, it became apparent to me that I was on lists outside of the Facebook Web Site.

But, it was not a major issue for me, and I did not use Facebook for the original intent, and so I wanted to have some fun and accessed the "political forums" of the Presidential race that started for me, in August of 2016. It was a major forum of activity, pro and con for the candidates. And the great thing about that episode was the ability to insert "photographs" to help your argument. To make a long story short, someone that did not like my posts and photographs, entered my computer and deleted all the photographs. That was a shock. Owning computers since 1983, and on the Internet since about 1989, fulltime, that had never occurred.

So, I simply stopped using Facebook and deleted the program from the computer, but did not delete the membership, for I intended to further investigate how they could enter my secured computer without knowing how they did it. That was about September 2016.

I put the Facebook behind me, and just did not think of it, until the following fall of 2017, when I noticed information pertaining to Quantum Analytica, with the issue being the following; "Facebook operates a social networking website that allows people to communicate with their family, friends, and coworkers. Facebook develops technologies that facilitate the sharing of information, photographs, website links, and videos. Facebook users have the ability to share and restrict information based on their own specific criteria. By the end of 2016, Facebook had more than 2.2 billion active users. The company's mission is to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. People use Facebook to stay connected with friends and family, to discover what's going on in the world, and to share and express what matters to them.

Cambridge Analytica is a privately held company that combines data mining and data analysis with strategic communication for use in the electoral process. As part of the sign up process and while interacting with the network, Facebook users create profiles containing significant amounts of personal information, including their name, birthdate, hometown, address, location, interests, relationships, email address, photos, and videos, amongst others, referred to herein as Personal Information.



The Bottom Line

By concealing this misconduct from its users, Facebook avoided backlash over its blatant misrepresentations from its users and preserved the strength of its data mining operation by avoiding a situation where its users reacted by deactivating their accounts. 

The Cambridge Analytica episode is only one small example. Facebook “lives” for one purpose, to gather as much personal, private information on individuals as can be created, with the help of thousands of companies that are in the business of gathering personal information for profit. 

The process is simple, they either fund to get the excess information with these third parties, or they purchase the information from these third parties. And the other option is for them to exchange information, with these third parties, depending how important that “third party company” information is.

Then, they assembled the information on each individual, with full knowledge of their likes and dislikes pertaining to “products” and “services” from their Internet searches and comments, and place advertisements before their eyes. That is how Facebook produces a very large section of their yearly income. By simply placing advertisements before the eyes of the individuals and charging their customers so many dollars for so many displays of their product or service on Facebook.

And in order to accomplish this feat, they must have all the private information they can gather to be successful, as they are. Even if their customer is abused.

So then, I created an analogy of this complete situation, caused by Facebook, to wit.......

“A home owner decides to replace a lock on his front door. He contacts a local lock smith to replace the lock in the front door.

After agreeing on a price of $200.00, the Lock Smith replaces the lock on the front door. The Lock Smith gives the homeowner, keys to the lock in the front door.

After a period of time, the Home Owner that purchased the lock of the front door from that Lock Smith discovers through his news media outlet, that the same Lock Smith that replaced his lock, in his front door, has been accused and it is certified, that he has given, sold, exchanged for value, copied keys of his customers homes to other people, for their own use and profit, whether legal or illegal.

So, the home owner calls another Lock Smith Company, to order a new lock for his front door, and after arriving at an agreed price of $200.00, the lock of the front door is replaced. The new Lock Smith signs an agreement that he will not give or sell a copy of his keys to the lock in the front door, to anyone.

The Home Owner decides to sue the Lock Smith that sold, traded, exchanged for value, gave away home owner lock keys. The small claims lawsuit was for the cost of the new lock for his front door, court and legal costs, and, the time and stress of having to worry about the safety of his home, and having to purchase a new lock for his front door.

And.....The Home Owner of the new lock in his front door was never burglarized”.