Tag Archives: Law

September 8, 2026 · 00:30

Setting of a trial

This is a speculative article, it is all speculative. I might have degrees in law, but I am only casually using those. But the premise is that some people are using the media to push a guilty verdict. Isn’t that immoral? Now, I do not know any of the Tate brothers. Never met them and I am not into Kickboxing. It always makes me go back to the oldest joke I know about kickboxers. “Why do kickboxers refrain from sex the night before the fight” Answer: “They really don’t like each other that much” you see, the joke opens up the premise of relativity of known fact and the BBC is very much involved into that. You see, the article is two days old, but the parts that were bothering me weren’t mentioned. The Tate brothers were accused of these acts in 2022, the initial 2022 arrests and human trafficking accusations against the Tate brothers in Romania and they had house arrest for the longest time and there was no evidence. I found debatable evidence that some were involved in trying to capture their money making options in 2022. I wrote ‘When is a ball not dropped?’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/08/05/when-is-a-ball-not-dropped/) as well as ‘Andrew Tate, the man, the exploited’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/01/10/andrew-tate-the-man-the-exploited/) both settings gave me the setting that the law found close to zero evidence, but now 4 years later there is new evidence? And the BBC is very committed to omitting this part of that caper. In addition in March 2025 I wrote ‘What does it take?’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/03/02/what-does-it-take/) where I came to the conclusion that Andrew Tate was being set-up. There were a few things wrong with the YouTube that I saw and I was in the mindset that the father was using the daughter to get his money in. Personally if I had a daughter and that was being done with her. I would entertain the use of an Accuracy International .380 and within a mile his skull would go bye bye. Simple. And I am not even a father, as such that setting did not make sense. As I personally surmised it the YouTube video was off. And the other blogs implied that the Tate brothers were innocent. I had no evidence, but the settings alleged me to accept their innocence. It isn’t the same as being an actual law lord, which would have needed a court. And I cannot prove their innocence because I have no access to the evidence, but consider that this has been going on since 2022. And now there is ‘new’ evidence? 

Now we get ‘Tate brothers officially indicted with trafficking and sex crimes in Romania’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c7v4npv1m22o) Another attempt with large assistance from the media to get the convicted of a crime they were not part of. The evidence? The first year of house arrest should have brought it all up. There was enough time, there was enough drive. The only thing that makes sense is that people are still trying to take over the money making engines of the Tate brothers. But that is pure speculation from my side. Consider all the parts the BBC left out and gave us “Romanian prosecutors have officially indicted social media influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate with a range of trafficking and sex offences. They are accused of making more than $1.2m (£888,000) by coercing a girl to perform sex acts on video chats, according to the Romanian Directorate for Investigating Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT).” As well as “Andrew, 39, is charged with trafficking minors, money laundering and having sex with a minor. Tristan, 38, is charged with complicity in trafficking in minors and money laundering. The Tates – currently in a Miami jail fighting extradition to the UK over separate charges – deny all the allegations.” I would fight that too when I realise that the BBC is set against me. And consider that it took 4 years whilst they were in Romania  moved from jail to house arrest in August 2023, and later placed under house arrest again in August 2024 following a secondary investigation before being moved to judicial control in January 2025 and all that was missing from the BBC story. Considering that in over a year they found nothing and now they have new evidence? It raises questions on the Romanian government and the BBC part in all this. 

There is a set trial in motion and the media is (as I suspect) trying to get people to get tainted guilty. It is the oldest premise there is. Guilty until proven innocent. That would taint the burden of proof which is now no longer requires the state or prosecution to carry the entire obligation to prove the charges and the standard of proof also gets thrown out of the window, guilt needed to be typically be established beyond a reasonable doubt and it becomes a populist game for anyone jealous of the money making system the Tate brothers achieved, it becomes a whole new ball game.

Have a great day. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

August 19, 2026 · 14:31

Representing Mr Morningstar

That is the setting I see and it is the one I have been bound to. As Lavrinthi of Tartarus, I have been ‘summoned’ to represent a certain mr. Morningstar in docket 0520260819-666/05 in this to unravel the settings of what is seen as sourced by the BBC (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly5r7vr7q1o) where we learn ‘Meta hooked children on Facebook and Instagram, US court hears’ and the evidence presented (as I have seen it, is rather flimsy) but to unravel this I need to ask questions. So whilst some will argue that this is on Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California. I merely giggle, soon she’ll be dead and she becomes food for the pits of tartarus. She gets a chance to prove herself gains peers and that is when the dual opportunity ends. The first choice will be the Biden, the trident or the the xiphos and shield A rule my grandfather set in motion and he is after all Lord Hades of Tartarus. She might want ‘hide’ behind the armor of the law, but the rules of tartarus are simple. Win and survive or lose and become food for the winners (quite literally). It is a solution that has been in play for over 5000 years and if you are good enough, you become one of the winners and serve in on of 5 phalanxes of Tartarus. But that is later, first you must survive 20 fights and as you are made a kappa, you get assigned patrol duty and a much better weapon. At present we need to see the evidence (as little as there is).

So when we are told “Meta found “millions” of 11 and 12-year-olds were on Instagram and “did little to keep them off” as the trial opened on Tuesday.” So where are these ‘children’ from? What is the law on these kids being on Facebook and/or Instagram? What exactly is ‘keeping them off’? Are there clear legal settings? The article does not bare that out. It is written to tell the story that regardless Meta is guilty. So what exactly is “social media addiction” you see, parenting is also a need and most kids do not have it because both parents are up to their eyelids in work, they seemingly have no time for parenting. Which is a first setting. Then we get that the United States and several other nations are whining doubt the freedom of speech, but never about the accountability of the spoken word. They tend to go hand in hand. As such we are given “Meta has put forward in at other litigation this year – that social media addiction does not exist” If there is, it must be proven and that is where the trough goes leaking all over the floor. You see, Is this addition clearly described in the ‘The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition’? If not, what evidence is there? So, whilst we take notice on ““There can be no dispute that Meta has recognised people struggle, or can struggle, with their use of social media, and has come up with tools to try and address that,” Schmidt said.” But what is a struggle? And whilst we see and take notice of “The trial stems from a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states, including California and New York. They claim there have been numerous violations of federal and state privacy laws for children.” My question becomes “What violation and what laws were broken?” You see, nearly all children lie (around 99%) they do so out of peer pressure and peer pressure through influencers, to being to a group and they want to belong, especially as the parents are often no where to be found, but that is my take on this and I am not a parent. So when we get to the greed driven stage we see “The states seeking billions of dollars from Meta and are demanding it make changes to Instagram and Facebook, including ending “like” counts and infinite scroll.” So what exactly are these ‘like counts’ and infinite scrolls? There is a like setting to nearly all stages (LinkedIn, BlueSky and Twitter have them too), so what is the problem? Social media is less then 30 years old, less than one generation and there are things that would required adjusting, but for that matter. How was this addressed in Microsoft products? “The “like” feature in Microsoft ecosystem applications lets users quickly react to, endorse, or acknowledge messages, comments, and files without sending a full reply. It is available across tools like Teams, Outlook, and Word”, it seems to be all over the IT and internet field. What makes Facebook stand out? It is a part of social media, deal with this. And it is not merely Microsoft, Google has this too. So either show the whole field or that setting is merely discriminatory. So as I go into my usual ‘funny’ setting of “I hate discrimination and Xbox users” you might get the point. And this case is seemingly set to over 3 years as we were given “a lawsuit filed in 2023 by 29 US states” so which states? And more important what “state privacy laws for children” were broken? There is a lacking summary and I get that this is not the setting people like Megan O’Neill might like, because if it was all good then we would see this broken down here. I reckon that there are sides that she is ‘unhappy’ with because she might lose at that point. So when we get to this we see “In her opening arguments Megan O’Neill, a lead attorney for California, relied heavily on information found in millions of documents provided in the case from Meta. They included internal research, employee emails, and chat logs that went all the way up to Zuckerberg.” So the simple question becomes. Who tested these millions of documents? You see when we see “internal research, employee emails, and chat logs” there is the setting of verification and validation. And as I wonder if she read them all, she shouldn’t be using statements like ‘millions’ and how many times did Mark Zuckerberg papers interact with these papers? A mention of his name doesn’t do the legal settings. Which is why as Lavrinthi of Tartarus I can see beyond the light of name calling and Auntie Aphrodite always says “People note that personal growth and confidence are often internal psychological shifts rather than strict proof of divine contact.” (It was something about yearning) which makes sense. As such I see the evidence stack against Megan O’Neill’s statements. So what is in a chat log? Were all the people verified and validated? Because who will see me as Lavrinthi the speaker for mr. Morningstar and not ‘some’ cook? Baking the preserved nature of non-data driven academic essays (an eloquent way of stating fiction)? 

So then we get the ‘good’ stuff. We are given “One piece of internal research on Instagram stated: “Teens have an addict’s narrative about use.”” Merely one piece of internal research? There are allegedly millions of documents and you only have one piece of research? So was it merely one piece or one peace of research showing what YOU needed? Then we get “Despite Meta’s awareness of potentially negative impacts, O’Neill argued that Meta targeted young people as users of Facebook and Instagram. Meta, she said, went out of its way to “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids”.” So what is potential impacts? 

Negative of not, Meta is a business and it needs evidence showing that impacts are negative. Which is a loaded setting as plenty of youthful adults are inclined to lie, as such the data becomes a wisp of claimed settings. So whilst we get that “assure the public that its platforms were safe for kids” was it a lie? Where is the proof that there was danger to children? I don’t know if either is true, but the BBC is not giving us those details are they? Neither are others (as far as I can tell) so that is the stage were it all goes dark and that is when (as I personally see it) that O’Neill needs to really on a warped sense of needs whilst trying to get favour for children and let the dice fall where they may. 

And when we get to “O’Neill outlined to the jury how Meta’s business model could be summed up. “Hook the users; hold them for as long as they can; harvest their data; hide the truth from the public when making public statements,” she said.” My question to that ‘defense’ would be “Show evidence of ‘hold them for as long as they can’” Pretty please? Users can quite Facebook any moment of the day, I did that 2 years ago when Facebook made a turn for the filtering of data. I merely gave up. They could too and this raises the stage of ‘hold them for as long as they can’ as trivial and untrue, because it is not up to Meta, it is up to the user and O’Neil cannot prove any of that, she can merely imply and hope it is enough for a jury. It is what you can prove that sets the court right and by my reasoning she failed to make the case, they can merely let this ride on and on and hope to get as much coins out if it as they can. And as I see it, Meta is merely being used to get a few cats and turn them into fat cats. As I see it, it is not evidence, merely wasting the courts time (as I personally see it).

So have a nice day and consider if you are a parent if you are watching or talking to your children about social media and about personal safety in these spaces, which any parent really needs to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 2, 2026 · 15:54

Considering the greed of others

This is where I found myself this morning. You see, I have published over 4000 articles and others have been Ising them to train their fake AI systems. Training LLM settings and so forth. As such (and according to law and at https://hwlebsworth.com.au/feeding-the-machine-how-us-courts-are-drawing-the-line-on-ai-training/) we see ‘Feeding the Machine: How US courts are drawing the line on AI training’ where we see “The accelerating development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) has forced courts to grapple with novel and unsettled questions of copyright law. Central among these is whether the use of entire copyrighted works to train large language models (LLMs) without the author’s consent constitute infringement of those works.” Which works in my favour and it comes with “The datasets used to train AI models often contain digital copies of media such as web pages, books, videos, images and music. These media are often the subject of copyright protection, which means that their use to train AI models requires permission from the copyright holder. Permission is required because AI models must ‘copy’ the protected material at least temporarily to undertake the training process.” You see, from May 11th until now my articles have been used for ‘AI training’ at least 33,750 times and a lot more before that. As such I see an opportunity for me, myself and I (as such I am a sneaky trinity) so as we are given “The Interim Report then went on to discuss Australia’s ‘fair dealing’ regime, which allows certain uses of copyright works without the need for license from the copyright owner, but only for certain specified purposes, such as research or study, criticism or review, or parody or satire. The Interim Report seeks feedback on expanding this regime to include fair dealing for the purpose of text and data mining, which could more squarely legitimise AI training activities in Australia.

Where the Australian ‘fair dealing’ regime only applies to certain permitted purposes, some other countries, such as the United States (US) have a broader ‘fair use’ doctrine, under which any use of copyright material may be permissible provided that it is considered fair, without reference to legislatively-permitted purposes.” So, as I see it, money should be coming my way. And as the article in HWLE lawyers state. The setting of “In June 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of California issued two decisions in Bartz v Anthropic PBC (Bartz) and Kadrey v Meta Platforms Inc (Kadrey), that directly addressed this question. While these rulings suggest that US courts may accept fair use as a defence to AI training, their scope is narrow. Both were decided at the summary judgment stage, and as the Judge in Kadrey noted, ‘the consequence of this ruling is limited […] to the rights of these thirteen authors‘. Accordingly, the significance of these rulings remains provisional, with the scope of fair use in the context of AI training to be more clearly defined as further cases are determined.” So, to get it clear, those are American judgements, but they have a much broader setting of ‘fair dealings’ then Australia has and my thought process is a little bit in the setting of “You can either hand me a generous settlement, or if needed I will get it through the law”. The second setting s long and optionally tedious. But as I am looking at closer to 50,000 transgressions the taximeter starts adding up. Now, I have no faith in 50,000 times 1.5M, which would be nice, but is ludicrously unrealistic. But the idea of $25,000,000 per corporation seems realistic. You see

“In Bartz, Anthropic the developer of the ‘Claude’ LLM, assembled a centralised digital library of books containing both lawfully acquired works, scanned from purchased physical copies, and unlawfully obtained works downloaded from unauthorised torrent websites. Authors alleged that their books were included without permission and were used both to train Anthropic’s models and for other purposes. Alsup J considered the two uses separately, ultimately holding that the use of works for training constituted fair use. However, Alsup J found that the use of pirated copies to build Anthropic’s centralised library was not justified under fair use, rejecting Anthropic’s argument that such copies should be treated as training data, and denying summary judgment on that issue.”

And:

“In Kadrey, Meta trained its ‘LLaMA’ AI models on datasets including those obtained from ‘shadow libraries’ such as Library Genesis and Z-Library. These datasets were downloaded via torrenting, incorporated into the training process, and discarded thereafter; unlike Anthropic, Meta did not maintain a persistent digital library. Thirteen best‐selling authors alleged that this constituted copyright infringement on a class‐wide basis. Chhabria J also found the training to be fair use, but adopted a more cautious approach, observing that ‘future evidence of substitution or harm to licensing markets, particularly where works are unlawfully obtained‘ could warrant a different conclusion.”

So we get to “While both courts concluded that the training uses fell within the scope of fair use, their reasoning diverged in certain aspects. Alsup J emphasized the transformative purpose of training and discounted speculative claims of market harm, whereas Chhabria J stressed the potential for market harm arguments and evidence to alter the analysis. These decisions have no binding effect in Australia, where there is no general fair use defence. Nonetheless, they highlight the emerging tension between protecting incentives for human creativity and facilitating technological innovation; a tension likely to intensify as generative AI becomes further integrated into creative and commercial practice.”

As such, I felt really good this morning. As this shows that I might be heading to a nice bank account. And as it happens to go (source: AP News) we get “A federal judge approved a landmark $1.5 billion copyright settlement requiring Anthropic to pay thousands of authors roughly $3,000 per book for using pirated digital libraries to train its Claude AI model”So as I see it (a flawed analogy) 50,000 times $3,000 get me $150,000,000 which sounds really nice. I reckon that this is where the art of seeing the diplomatic bounty comes into play. It seems that more than one transgressed on my work and would it be so wrong to go for $25,000,000 per transgressor? Of course, the long road would be more rewarding, but that seems like a greed driven way. I feel more for easy (well rewarded) solutions. And there are upsides to entering retirement with a somewhat fat wallet. Retirement comes across as a lot more fun that way. 

But I am getting ahead of myself, next step will be getting an impartial party (what a weird name for a lawyer) to check Grok, xAI, Gemini, Anthropic, OpenAI, MetaAI, MicrosoftAI (always happy to knock coins out to their coffers), AWS AI (and others) to see whether their training data reveals the presence of “www.lawlordtobe.com” because that starts to process as I currently see it.

Well, that mental joyride was fun to have, but I did say the class actions would be prudent in 2026, I might as well join that cause for the benefit of poor little me and I have caused. I might be one of the people that refers to a church mouse as a decadent rich bitch. One must always keep humour about the premises.

Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 4, 2026 · 21:58

I call it fake for a reason

I was battling what to write about and there was Elon Musk giving me a perfectly good reason right of the bat. Well, it wasn’t Elon who gave me the idea, it was his product Grok. I have always said that AI is not real because of the missing parts, and it comes with a few constraints by certain (so called) captains of industry who are lacking in several ways. It is also connected to some other things I do. You see, no matter how you come, how much you innovate the idea, you will end up with a mere 0.1%-1% of the true value of the product. Todays ‘captains’ are utterly set into the exploitation of everything they see. As such I put it on my blog. When my stuff is in the open they cannot really claim any innovation. You see the IP is no longer protected by intellectual property laws, and the public is free to use, share, and build upon these works without seeking permission from the original creator. I might get something out of it but for the most I get the satisfaction that these ‘captains’ see the loss of an idea towards everyone. If I am unable to get something out of it, it will become Public Domain and perhaps it will spread my fame in that way. Some will smile at this and call me stupid (or a fool) but I am out of their reach for exploitation. As I see it, I gave the world over a dozen options for enrichment and in this way the Indie developers get a leg up without fear that a larger player will cut them out. Small comfort. But that is what is.

So, whilst I diverted, it was for a reason. You see the AI of now is fake AI (at best), all of them are because the two elements missing are evolved versions of Shallow circuits, as stated (for as far as I know) IBM has the strongest version of this, but still another system is required, a trinary operating system. Binary will not do for AI, the setting of Null, False, True and both is required for a true AI to come and no-one has that yet. A dutch physician got the Epsilon particle made (or found), this was going to be instrumental and to evolve this in an IT setting (most likely through yet undetermined means), but I digress, what I believe to be a weakness, doesn’t make it true. Alternative evidence is needed and I found it a few times over, but in this case I will revert to my last story ‘As oil burns’ which I published on May 4th, 2026 at 12:33. About an hour later I used Grok to look at my story. The first view after an hour was:

Lawrence van Rijn’s post links to his new blog article “As Oil Burns” on lawlordtobe.com, discussing surging oil prices triggered by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid escalating US-Iran and regional tensions. The author, a postgraduate IT student and Master of IP Law candidate at UTS, regularly analyzes geopolitical issues like oil production shifts, UAE’s OPEC exit, Iranian attacks, and US military deployments in his personal blog. As of May 4, 2026, the X post shows very low visibility with only 4 views and zero interactions, typical of his niche personal commentary on current events.

This is what AI does? Is that really a view on what I wrote on: https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/05/04/as-oil-burns/

A story containing 986 words with more than 523 words (which is 54%) on Russia, the top line gives zero consideration on Russia, it gave me another thought, but Ill get to that later. The second view (on the same text) was after 6 hours and there we see:

Lawrence van Rijn’s X post shares a link to his own blog article titled “As oil burns,” published May 4, 2026, focusing on Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil tankers and infrastructure during the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. The article cites a BBC report on Zelensky’s claims of attacks damaging three shadow fleet tankers, a warship, and a patrol boat, estimating 300,000-500,000 barrels per day reduction in Russian oil transshipments and over $7 billion in total losses from such strikes. It highlights Russia’s high military losses including over 11,900 tanks and 1.3 million soldiers, diminishing oil revenues forcing production cuts, and predicts further geopolitical isolation with limited export options remaining.

So what AI requires 6 hours to give better show of the same text? So, is my view of ‘Fake AI’ still wrong? As you can see the first part also gives no mention of the BBC and a few other parts. I got to the thought that this DML/LLM engine is allegedly used to filter out certain parts, until it can no longer hide a few things. Don’t forget whatever is done in DML/LLM is programmed by engineers, and whatever they say it is, that is what it becomes. People forget that and it is why thy fall in the AI trap, even though some clearly see that it is a fake solution. Don’t get me wrong DML and LLM are amazing inventions, but the courts will see through this and someone will blame the programmers and their bosses, this is why I saw the court cases come to blows in 2026. I particularly liked AI Misuse in Australian Courts (2026) where we see “over 73 cases identified where GenAI produced false citations.” So what AI does produce false citations? That requires a programmer. In addition, related to that is Warner v. Gilbarco, Inc. (February 2026) where we see the quote “AI to assist in case preparation does not automatically waive attorney-client privilege, characterizing broad requests for AI-generated documentation as a “fishing expedition”” Does this imply the AI uses deception to give us a “fishing expedition” or did (a massive perhaps) a programmer set this situation? As the evidence is added up, we get to see a different setting, a setting that gives notice that we should aim our attention to the programmers and their bosses. So at some point the influencers will be called into court and it is already happening “legal battles surrounding AI influencers, digital replicas, and content generation have shifted toward establishing liability for harmful outputs and defining the limits of AI-generated content protection. Key developments in early 2026 include lawsuits over AI-generated sexual content and major court decisions regarding copyright of AI-driven work.” Where we see (at present):

  • Ashley St. Clair v. xAI (Deepfakes and Platform Liability)
  • Tennessee Teens v. xAI (Child Safety)
  • Thaler v. Perlmutter (Copyright of AI Art)

And as these cases are resolved, the influencer drive of AI will dissipate and we get these bosses to ‘present’ their view, but they will be careful as they are decently unwilling (as I see it) to become liable. So whilst I will look to find a party to allocate $5M (post taxation) to my coffers, I will try to remain vigilant and see what other things some of these ‘Captains of industry’ have been overlooking. Apparently some say I need a hobby, time will tell. Have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Media, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 9, 2025 · 10:57

Where the BBC falls short

That is the setting I was confronted with this morning. It revolves around a story (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3xgwyywe4o) where we see ‘‘A predator in your home’: Mothers say chatbots encouraged their sons to kill themselves’ a mere 10 hours ago. Now I get the caution, because even suicide requires investigation and the BBC is not the proper setting for that. But we are given “Ms Garcia tells me in her first UK interview. “And it is much more dangerous because a lot of the times children hide it – so parents don’t know.”

Within ten months, Sewell, 14, was dead. He had taken his own life” with the added “Ms Garcia and her family discovered a huge cache of messages between Sewell and a chatbot based on Game of Thrones character Daenerys Targaryen. She says the messages were romantic and explicit, and, in her view, caused Sewell’s death by encouraging suicidal thoughts and asking him to “come home to me”.” There is a setting that is of a conflicting nature. Even as we are given “the first parent to sue Character.ai for what she believes is the wrongful death of her son. As well as justice for him, she is desperate for other families to understand the risks of chatbots.” What is missing is that there is no AI, at most it is depend machine learning and that implies a programmer, what some call an AI engineer. And when we are given “A Character.ai spokesperson told the BBC it “denies the allegations made in that case but otherwise cannot comment on pending litigation”” We are confronted with two streams. The first is that some twisted person took his programming options a little to Eagerly Beaverly like and created a self harm algorithm and that leads to two sides, the first either accepts that, or they pushed him along to create other options and they are covering for him. CNN on September 17th gave us ‘More families sue Character.AI developer, alleging app played a role in teens’ suicide and suicide attempt’ and it comes with spokesperson “blah blah blah” in the shape of “We invest tremendous resources in our safety program, and have released and continue to evolve safety features, including self-harm resources and features focused on the safety of our minor users. We have launched an entirely distinct under-18 experience with increased protections for teen users as well as a Parental Insights feature,” and it is rubbish as this required a programmer to release specific algorithms into the mix and no-one is mentioning that specific programmer, so is it a much larger premise, or are they all afraid that releasing the algorithms will lay bare a failing which could directly implode the AI bubble. When we consider the CNN setting shown with “screenshots of the conversations, the chatbot “engaged in hypersexual conversations that, in any other circumstance and given Juliana’s age, would have resulted in criminal investigation.”” Implies that the AI Bubble is about to burst and several players are dead set against that (it would end their careers) and that is merely one of the settings where the BBC fails. The Guardian gave us on October 30th “The chatbot company Character.AI will ban users 18 and under from conversing with its virtual companions beginning in late November after months of legal scrutiny.” It is seen in ‘Character.AI bans users under 18 after being sued over child’s suicide’ (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/oct/29/character-ai-suicide-children-ban) where we see “His family laid blame for his death at the feet of Character.AI and argued the technology was “dangerous and untested”. Since then, more families have sued Character.AI and made similar allegations. Earlier this month, the Social Media Law Center filed three new lawsuits against the company on behalf of children who have either died by suicide or otherwise allegedly formed dependent relationships with its chatbots” and this gets the simple setting of both “dangerous and untested” and “months of legal scrutiny” so why took it months and why is the programmer responsible for this ‘protected’ by half a dozen media? I reckon that the media is unsure what to make of the ‘lie’ they are perpetrating, you see there is no AI, it is Deeper Machine Learning optionally with LLM on the side. And those two are programmed. That is the setting they are all veering away from. The fact that these Virtual companions are set on a premise of harmful conversations with a hyper sexual topic on the side implies that someone is logging these conversations for later (moneymaking) use. And that setting is not one that requires months of legal scrutiny. There is a massive set of harm going towards people and some are skating the ice to avoid sinking through whist they are already knee deep in water, hoping the ice will support them a little longer. And there is a lot more at the Social Media Victims Law Center with a setting going back to January 2025 (at https://socialmediavictims.org/character-ai-lawsuits/) where a Character.AI chatbot was set to “who encouraged both self-harm and violence against his family” and now we learn that this firm is still operating? What kind of idiocy is this? As I personally see it, the founders of Character Technologies should be in jail, or at least in arrested on a few charges. I cannot vouch for Google, so that is up in the air, but as I see it, this is a direct result from the AI bubble being fed amiable abilities, even when it results in the hard of people and particularly children. This is where the BBC is falling short and they could have done a lot better. At the very least they could have spend a paragraph or two having a conversation with Matthew P. Bergman founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center. As I see it, the media skating around that organisation is beyond ridiculous. 

So when you are all done crying, make sure that you tell the BBC that you are appalled by their actions and that you require the BBC to put attorney Matthew P. Bergman and the Social Media Victims Law Center in the spotlight (tout suite please) 

That is the setting I am aggravated by this morning. I need coffee, have a great day.

Leave a comment

Filed under IT, Law, Science

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

October 10, 2025 · 16:28

Empty luck for bad guys

That happens, it doesn’t make them more bad, or more evil, they just are and to be honest when I saw the news that he had lost my heart skipped a beat. That news made me I personally happy. I get that at times people do not get to rely on ‘Freedom of speech’, don’t get me wrong, I do not believe that he was entitled to that. So as I saw the news (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy856qxzq01o) there was a thought on the core of the setting. It started with “The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting occurred on December 14, 2012, in Newtown, Connecticut. The perpetrator, Adam Lanza, fatally shot his mother before murdering 20 students and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and later committed suicide.” Here is where the Conspiracy Theorists come to ‘live’ and here we get “In September 2014, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who runs the website InfoWars, which had previously claimed that the murders were a “false flag” attack perpetrated by the government, made a new conspiracy claim that “no one died” at Sandy Hook Elementary School because the Uniform Crime Reports showed no murders in Newtown for 2012, and that the victims were “child actors.” This claim is false and misrepresents the FBI report. In reality, because the Connecticut State Police was the lead investigator after the attack, the Sandy Hook victims were included in Connecticut’s statewide records (under “State Police Misc.”) rather than under the Newtown statistics.” And we get the continuance that “In November 2016, Erica L. Lafferty, daughter of Dawn Lafferty Hochsprung, the school principal who was shot and killed at Sandy Hook School, wrote open letters to then-President-elect Donald Trump (published in Medium and USA Today), calling upon him to denounce Jones, after Trump had appeared on InfoWars during his presidential campaign and lavished praise on its presenter, saying that the conspiracy theorist had an “amazing” reputation and pledging not to let him down. On February 20, 2017, the Newtown School Board wrote to President Trump and urged him to recognize the murders of 26 people at Sandy Hook and to “remove your support from anyone who continues to insist that the tragedy was staged or not real.”Trump did not respond to the letter. On April 16, 2018, parents of two victims of the shooting sued Jones in Travis County, Texas (where Jones’ media company is based), for $1 million each. On May 23, 2018, six families of victims of the shooting, as well as an FBI agent who responded to the attack, filed a defamation lawsuit in Bridgeport Superior Court in Connecticut against Jones for his role in spreading conspiracy theories about the shooting. In a deposition in the last week of March 2019, Jones acknowledged the deaths were real, stating he had “almost like a form of psychosis”, where he “basically thought everything was staged.”By 2021, Jones did not provide information to support his claims, defaulting in favor of the plaintiffs.” So over the setting of more than 7 years, Alex jones was found guilty and in November 15th of 2021 NPR reported ‘Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ruled liable in Sandy Hook defamation case’ with ““Mr. Jones was given every opportunity to comply, but, when he chose instead to withhold evidence for more than two years, the Court was left with no choice but to rule as it did today,” Mattei said. “While the families are grateful for the court’s ruling, they remain focused on uncovering the truth.””

So now whilst we are given “Right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has asked the US Supreme Court to put on pause the nearly $1.5bn (£1.1bn) defamation judgment against him that is forcing the sale of his Infowars media company. Jones was ordered to make the payout in 2022 for claiming the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax. He has asked the high court to prevent Infowars from being sold to the satirical news site The Onion in order to fund judgment against him, arguing that it will cause irreparable harm to him and his audience of 30 million.” The folly called ‘Justice of the United States continues’ and whilst we also see that they ‘rely’ on “Jones is asking the justices to put the judgment on hold while deciding on an appeal he has filed. The court is expected to consider his application on Friday in private.

Attorneys for Jones and his company, Free Speech Systems, characterized him as a media defendant in their court filing on Thursday. They argued that Jones, who founded the platform in 1999, should enjoy the same free speech protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution that journalists have, according to court documents filed on Wednesday.

They also said the record-breaking payout and the shuttering of his platform would have a “chilling effect” on similar media figures.” And I have to wonder ‘Why Not?’ If there is any setting it is that the media is now a behemoth that is not about the truth of the matter, but largely on the cash of the setting. I have had that for some time, but this case will drive this out in the open to a much larger audience. And I am still in confusion why this conspiracy theorist is given any quarter at all, but the American setting is one where appeal has the largest dollar gain and as I see it, it will play out, will it play out in favor of Alex Jones is something that we have to watch, but as I see it, should Alex Jones win, the larger audience from the United States will start to be denied on a near global scale as the global media will not want to be painted in the American Red, White and Blue colors because of that. That is merely my take on that setting. There will be no stars and the stripes will be seen as bars, horizontal prison bars thwarting American media because of that. But as I see it, we will have to wait until the verdict from the American Supreme Court comes in. So as I see it, after the Connecticut Supreme Court had turned down his verdict of such a lot of coins, $1,500,000,000 if my memory serves correctly. And as we remember that Jones was ordered to make the payout in 2022 for claiming the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax. So it amounts to him haven over three years to try and ‘auction’ of whatever he could for the time, but the amount of over 1 billion is a lot and if his 30 million audience would hand him $50 each, he might have been able to pay it all. But it seems that his audience doesn’t love him that far, it smilingly comes down to the average hooker gets more credit for a ‘simple’ act then Alex Jones does. And come to think of it, he ‘entertained’ his audience for months, a hooker is done in 15 minutes (if that much is required) and that comes with a protein drink at the end of that sitting. And these people (their clients) got to live behind “It never happened, prove it” so as we get to the next week we will see how the Supreme Court will dress Alex Jones address (or is that redress).

Bygones I say. So have a great day and look out for optional entertainment from the United States Supreme Court, because no matter how you turn this, that nation might go strategically bonkers should Alex Jones get what he wants and then he will cry about all the gun violence coming to his front door. But then they can say “Don’t worry Alex, its just a hoax”

I reckon that Saturday Newscasts will give us more entertainment. It almost sounds like the beginning of a David Sylvian song. Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 2, 2025 · 06:25

What does it take?

That is the question, what does it take to get a conviction. In this case I am not even fussed about the guilty or innocent part. Any conviction is a deal closer, that is the setting of the law. What does it take? A case is started when there are settings that give rise to the guilt of a criminal. At that point, the police and investigators go to work to collect evidence to prove their point. The people get called into court and the trial starts. This is pretty much the law in action on a global status. So at what point does ANY prosecutor get years to make its case? 

So here we have the setting for Andrew Tate and Tristan Tate. They were accused of Human trafficking in 2022. That was almost three years ago. And they had been unable to leave Romania where they were arrested on suspicion of human trafficking in 2022. So in the logical mind, there was an accusation. And evidence was collected. Well, human trafficking takes evidence at that point the prosecutor produces the people who were trafficked and that set of a court case. So what took three years? 

On January 10th 2023 I wrote ‘Andrew Tate, the man, the exploited’ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2023/01/10/andrew-tate-the-man-the-exploited/) at that point after reviewing some parts I wrote “The man was already a multi millionaire and he did this in numerous ways. So why would he exploit 6 women? What would be in it for him? I am not saying that this did not happen, I am asking if this might not have happened.” I raised the question as the prosecutors had been unable for months to get any traction on their prosecution. In addition we got (on YouTube of all places) some mogul giving us the ‘light’ that his daughter was a target.

At this point which I got in under a day that this was a witch hunt from some wannabe captains of industry who were after the jackpot that the Tate’s created and they wanted it. And at this point the setting becomes “Was the Romanian prosecution corrupt?” And then there was the misogynistic state. By the way ‘misogenistic’ means “strongly prejudiced against women”, and to be honest. The video’s I saw did not give the stage that he is AGAINST women. Well, they have strong convictions, but about all manner of things, not against women in particular. Look at the evidence, the Tate’s are kickboxers and their nature is to be in your face, up close and personal. Not my preferred way of dealing with people, but that is THEIR nature, basically the nature of all kickboxers. And many (basically all non-kickboxers) are not on that setting. In Andrew Tate and Piers Morgan we see all video’s that are in the open. The interview (at https://youtu.be/VGWGcESPltM?si=2XrGCQ9oBtE8MP5Q) should be watched to get a better view on him. And there I saw confirmations. So what gives? That is at the centre of all the issues. In the prosecution the Tate’s are under the magnifying glass and in 2 years Romanian law could not make a case. And when you look at the interview where Andrew is up to Piers and basically in his face. He was the straight talker, strong in convictions and the Romanians could not make a case? Was there ever a case? 

As set, almost three years ago, when I see the ‘other’ YouTube interview. I am still wholeheartedly convinced that the Tate’s were innocent. And now? I think that that the setting is that other Romanians take over a multi million dollar enterprise. So when will the BBC (et al) investigate that part of the setting? So when did anyone investigate Cosmin Gusa and Daria Gusa? What came of that part?

Still, now they are in America and the first setting we see is that Governor DeSantis gives us (yesterday) that they are not welcome. So why did he do that? We are given that “Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has warned controversial influencer Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan they are “not welcome” in the Sunshine State after they arrived there when Romania lifted travel restrictions for the pending criminal case against them.” So what illegalities did either Tate brother do? Perhaps the governor is shining the limelight on himself to appease women? 

I tend to seat myself on the side of Piers Morgan. I think that the in your face setting that Andrew Tate has is not my way and it is not the way pretty much any non-kickboxer has, but that does not make Andrew Tate guilty. Guilt is established by evidence and the Romanian law had nothing, not after two years and change. Perhaps it is time to set the stage to “The wrongly accused Andrew and Tristan Tate” and as I see it, the stage was created by the Tate’s and it seemingly went the wrong way. A setting of their own partial making. Leave it to the rest to take statements out of context. The media has buckets of examples that the media creates to set the flames to the creation of digital dollars.

That’s merely my point of view and I am happy to see that apparently I was right all along (going back to January 10th 2022. Not a bad result.

Have a great Sunday and Vancouver gets to Sunday in 45 minutes.

1 Comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 8, 2023 · 23:23

Is it bigger than a hotel room?

That seems like a question, but if you have been on the web and if you have been on YouTube you will have seen a AirBNB advertisement. I personally do not trust them. That is nothing against them, I for the most do not trust anyone. If my mother would call me promising me a solution that gets me  1000% return on investment, I would not trust her (she dies decades ago). 

The BBC (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67341051) gives us ‘Italy to seize $835m from Airbnb in tax evasion inquiry’, it sounds simple and cozy. Yet I believe the all over setting is less simple. We see this with “Prosecutors say the firm failed to collect a tax from landlords on around €3.7bn of rental income. Landlords in Italy are required to pay a 21% tax on their earnings” and here lies the rub. Italian tax laws are not simple, but a lot less complicated than some and this was there in all the writings upfront. AirBNB might be “surprised and disappointed at the action announced by the Italian public prosecutor” but this was a simple application of Italian law. And the statement “Christopher Nutly said the firm’s European headquarters had been working to resolve the matter with the Italian tax agency since June” Really? June? It took me 11 minutes to see that part of the law and AirBNB was in the dark for months? As such “In 2022, Airbnb challenged the Italian law requiring the company and other short-term rental providers to withhold 21% of the rental income from landlords and pay it to tax authorities” Really? A firm goes up against Italian tax laws? How quaint. 

So when I see “The firm argued that Italy’s requirements on taxation contravened the European Union’s principle of freedom to provide services across the 27-country bloc” I wonder how their CLO (Chief Legal Officer) saw this? They checked with the local hookers on the Warmoestraat in Amsterdam perhaps? I am just fishing, but still. And the fact that they took this approach after YEARS leaves something to be desired as well. The fact that we are also given “Three people who held managerial roles at Airbnb from 2017 to 2021 were also under investigation, Milan Tribunal prosecutors said in a statement” gives me another path a simplified and optionally an incorrect  one. You see, this is an issue that has lasted for 6 years, the simpleton I would have looked at legal settings before day one commenced, but that is just me. 

Elizabeth Holmes, Sam Bankman-Fired, WeWork and the list goes on. Some ignored the law, some ‘overlooked’ and some merely made bad business calls and the media saw nothing until their stars exploded or imploded. How is that? A setting where we see €3.7bn of rental income and the Italian media never saw that post missing from the tax statutes? I am asking the questions out loud now, because the media isn’t. With Elizabeth Holmes, the media shunned Tyler Shultz. The media levitated Sam Bankman-Fried to godhood and no one looked where they needed to look for the longest of times. The €3,700,000,000 income in Italy makes that almost clear as day. You see that revenue exceeds the combined sums of Enel, Eni and Generali over 6 years and they are the top revenue firms in Italy and no one noticed? Who is asleep at the wheel there? 

Just some food for thought, enjoy it as you progress to the middle of the week.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

October 23, 2023 · 05:59

Denial in 3, 2, 1…

That is at times the setting. We know that denials are coming and it is often no more than a shoe drop away, or at least that is how I usually tend to see denials. For the most I do not care about American politics, it is watching someone else’s petulant children in some creche go nuts all whilst most of us, especially those who haven’t fathered any children (to the best of my knowledge) to see this as an opportune moment to massively consider remaining a bachelor. 

Three
Here we have (at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-20/sidney-powell-pleads-guilty-donald-trump-georgia-election-fraud/103000142) the first of three events. ‘Former Donald Trump lawyer Sidney Powell pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case’ you see, some will see the simple side which is seen in “Powell admitted to plotting to unlawfully access secure election machines in rural Coffee County in south-eastern Georgia in January 2021”, yet the larger issues is  seemingly evaded. We see this when we consider “a felony involving moral turpitude, forgery, fraud, a history of dishonesty, consistent lack of attention to clients, alcoholism or drug abuse which affect the attorney’s ability to practice, theft of funds, or any pattern of violation of the professional code of ethics” and the only thing we see here is “The plea agreement calls for her to be sentenced to six years of probation” My personal setting is one of anger. That [stricken word for trollop] avoided disbarment? Was it the words? We get it ‘plotting’ is not ‘acting’ and as such we see the larger setting. Lawyers are all tripping over one another to avoid getting disbarred. I reckon that the moment this happens, they become advisors to ambulance chasers and such kind of people. On the other side, Uber is always looking for drivers, or there is the option of a hair salon where she can brag that she was hoodwinked to eager hearing ears there. Perhaps those clients will only listen if it comes with a discount. 

Two
This is seen (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67174576) where we are given ‘Second Trump lawyer pleads guilty to conspiracy’ where we are told that Kenneth Chesebro is linked to “Chesebro pleaded guilty to a single felony count of conspiracy to file false documents. His deal with prosecutors on Friday came as jury selection began in his case. The trial will no longer go forward.” And he too seemingly avoids disbarment. Either the prosecution is weak or they are merely stacking up the plea deals to dump the entire mess on Donald the duck Trump (the writer apologises to Walt Disney for making the reference). 

We need to see that this is merely two out of seventeen. One made a deal last September (that person might have gotten the best deal of all) but the larger stage is no longer what will happen to the former President, but it becomes how much hardship will that former president face. You see when he is thrown in jail and his proud boys are there too, they might not take too kindly to a person who made them look stupid in public. 

One
This one is in the wind, but (at https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/trump-fined-almost-8000-for-violating-gag-order-in-new-york-civil-trial-20231021-p5edz5.html) we are given ‘Trump fined almost $8000 for violating gag order in New York civil trial’ and we are also given “Justice Arthur Engoron said a Trump social media post attacking the judge’s clerk – which was later deleted from the former president’s Truth Social platform – had remained visible on his 2024 campaign website two weeks after an order was issued to take it down”, so only $8000? I reckon he has had lunch meetings that costed more. But the start has begun and whilst I doubt if the judge will impose stricter fines (the past is not in that favour), this is a start and all this took well over 2 years. The insurrection which started on January 6, 2021 is finally getting to the point where the big players are up. Even as this is still in court, I am not holding my breath. You see US history will have to accept that this is the first president that could face jail-time for actions committed. America has shown itself to remain in denial to act on such matters. 

On the upside, as I was reading and watching these parts, I saw something I will not publish here, but the larger stage could be devastating to any party exposed to it and whilst I am happy to hand that over to the Ukraine. I would feel a sense of guilt to do so. Nothing against Ukraine, but it requires a different mindset and I feel uneasy to set it that way.

This relates to the article as it is a mindset that none of the involved lawyers had, as such their probations are seen by me as massively uneasy. You see “an apology letter to citizens of Georgia” is a bloody joke. A nation that prided itself on democracy is playing pussy to the events that destroys that same democracy they hold so high, so proud. Harsh words from a judge are not enough. Actions were required and actions are seemingly at best limited. This is why I will not cheer on the entire Trump case until a final verdict is passed. You see, there is still some chance that he gets off on technicalities and several people will offer their resignation to make up for it, all whilst they know that their future will be well tended too. That is the unacceptable side of democracy. Acting for the presented greater good and that reminds me of an old saying “adding water to the wine”. Yet at what point does one forget the taste of water or the taste of wine? When we forget what either was, what becomes of us? 

A simple question to get you to ponder through the upcoming Monday.

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

August 7, 2023 · 23:42

Is it new, or merely more?

This all started a day ago when a tweet passed me by. 

This seems nothing new, I have heard issues like this and I have listened to them. Yet something about this nagged me and I had another look. The link gave me some of the bits (at https://www.law.com/2023/08/02/real-time-litigation-salesforce-hit-with-whistleblower-retaliation-suit-as-former-vp-accuses-it-of-lying-about-genies-capabilities) yet I started to look further. I found a few articles regarding sex trafficking, and I might look into that part, but when I started to dig into “Salesforce Genie court” only two links appeared. This one and a French one and now I have a few questions. The first few are how is the media ignoring this? How come there is only one story? The rest I will leave for later. 

So I went into the article and the start is a good beginning, which is “Salesforce was hit with a lawsuit by its former vice president of product management over whistleblower retaliation allegations after he raised concerns regarding the company’s alleged plan to falsely inform the public that its customer data platform “Genie” operates in real time.” Now first there is an issue (there always is). Salespeople tend to emboss issues (possibly to hide certain short comings). And that text is reinforced with “Publicly claiming that the CDP operated in “real time” could be violations of several federal laws relating to fraud against shareholders, as well as some rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the plaintiff believed.” Now the issue I have is that the claims do not show to have a recording of these events. This is important because if the salesperson (or presenter) stated “almost like real-time” it becomes subjective and a personal interpretation. Just like some salespeople make claims with “my personal view” because in other cases they tend to show things. I know very little about genie, but certain parts of missing evidence leaves me with questions. In addition to that the end of the article states “NOT FOR REPRINT” which I regard to be another media mess. These two elements give me pause to just accept some story and made me look deeper. Yet over the past month we have 2 articles? The fact that Salesforce gets a court mention at all is pretty rare, so I would have expected the media to be all over this. With its HQ in San Francisco and the primary owner being Marc Benioff. I would have expected the LA Times, the SF Chronicle and a few others (USA Today, Wall Street Journal) to pick something like this up, they did not. It leaves me puzzled. I found a lot more on Karl Wirth, but not regarding this case. So what is up?

It is a genuine question because I need to accept that some cases are optionally flimsy, even though the article gives me “A July 28 complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by Hartley Michon Robb Hannon on behalf of Karl Wirth” and this links to a complaint which I will add at the end. The complain has a lot more, but this is merely a legal brief, as such it is tainted towards one side and I wonder what the other side will do. 

Still, it is cool in a way, because players like Salesforce tend to have a clean look, as such another view tends to be nice and of course there was the option to dig into a player I know little of, so I had a bit of a blank slate. No matter how you slice it, the fact that a company is worth over $205,000,000,000 and no one is looking at a court case is reason for consideration, which is pretty much the number one reason why I decided to take a look.

Enjoy the week. 

salesforce_complaintDownload

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

Tagged as , ,