Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 1 of 23 PagelD 599 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 5:24-ev-101-MMH-PRL, GOOGLE LLC, etal., Defendants. Ml ‘i PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS. ‘The Plaintiff, NEIL J. GILLESPIE, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, henceforth in the first person, moves for a writ of replevin against Defendants Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC, or in the alternative, for an order to show cause to serve on all the Defendants, and states: 1 ‘On February 1, 2024, the Plaintiff, Neil J. Gillespie, a nonlawyer appearing pro se, filed a COMLAINT FOR REPLEVIN, Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1.937, against Alphabet Inc., Google LLC, Verizon Communications Inc. and Verizon Wireless Services LLC (collectively, “the Verizon Defendants”), and Tracfone Wireless Inc. (“Tracfone”), in the Marion County Circuit Court, case no. 2024-CA-0209, Fifth Judicial Circuit, Florida (DOC 11) to recover his Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net, his Google recovery phone number 352-615-3819, and his Tracfone account for his alternate recovery phone number 352-850-5009. 2. ‘On February 8, 2024, | filed “Plaintiff's Verified Motion For A Writ Of Replevin Against Google, Or An Order To Show Cause To Serve On The Defendants” pursuant to the Florida Statutes, Chapter 78, Replevin. (DOC 1-4, Page ID 266 to Page ID 298) 3. On February 28, 2024, Attorneys for Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC removed my Complaint for Replevin to this Court, Case No. 5:24-cv-101-MMH-PRL. (DOC 1). Damon J.Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 2 of 23 PagelD 600 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS. Whitaker, Esq., Florida Bar No, 0923591, and Ezequiel Romero, Esq., Florida Bar No. 107216, each of the firm BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP, appear as Attorneys for Alphabet Ine. and Google LLC on the Notice of Removal. (DOC 1). 4. Footnote 1 on the Notice of Removal (DOC 1, page 4 of 5), states: For example, on February 8, 2024, Plaintiff apparently filed in the State Court Action a Verified Motion for a Writ of Replevin Against Google, or an Order to Show Cause to Serve on the Defendant. See Comp. Ex. B at Dkt. Sheet, Entry 15. While Google and Alphabet oppose that motion, no response is required at this time, and the motion will be denied without prejudice if it is not re-filed with this Court in a format complying with the Local Rules within twenty-one days after removal pursuant to Local Rule 1.06(c). 5S. Therefore, | hereby re-file in this Court an amended motion for writ of replevin against the Defendants Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC (collectively “Google”). Local Rule 1.06(c). 6. On May 10, 2023, | made a written request to Google and Sundar Pichai, Chief Executive Officer, for my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net. My letter with Affidavit and Proof of Delivery appear in Appendix A, at Exhibit A.4, to my Complaint for Replevin. (DOC 11). I did not get a response to my written request for my Google Account. 7. On June 1, 2023 the I notified Google by U.S. Certified Mail to Kenneth H. Yi, Director, Legal-Securities, Corporate Governance & Finance, of legal action if necessary to recover my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net, and to preserve all communication as evidence. My correspondence and Proof of Delivery appear in Appendix A, at Exhibit A.5, tomy Complaint for Replevin. (DOC 11). I did not get a response from Google. 8 I take the failure of Google to respond as a waiver in accordance with Fla. Stat. sec. 78.075 to be notified and heard. | do not owe money to Google. 9. On February 1, 2024 | filed a complaint for replevin against the Defendants. (DOC 11) 10. On February 7, 2024 the Marion Clerk issued summonses for the Defendants. (DOC 1-4)Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 3 of 23 PagelD 601 PLAINTIFFS OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS, 11. L move pursuant to Fla, Stat. sec. 78,065(1) for a writ of replevin against Google: (1) The court without delay shall examine the complaint filed; and, if on the basis of the complaint and further showing of the plaintif? in support of it the court finds that the defendant has waived in accordance with s. 78.075 his or her right to be notified and heard, the court shall promptly issue an order authorizing the clerk of the court to issue a writ of replevin. 12, Under 78.065(1), I further showed in support of my Complaint for Replevin: (DOC 11) Exhibit 1: The Plaintiff forwarded the GOOGI neilgillespie@mfi.net that he received Tuesda Clerk and the names shown, A PDF of the “Cr 15 to the Complaint. critical security alert” email to January 30, 2024 at 11:00 PM to the | security alert” email appears as ‘The Plaintiff forwarded the GOOGLE “Critical security alert” email to neilgillespie@mfi.net that he received February 2, 2024 at 5:19 PM to the Clerk and the email addresses shown. In the email Google wrote: "Sign-in attempt was blocked" “neilgillespie@mfi.net" "Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your account. Google blocked them, but you should check what happened.” The Plaintiff is the person who used his password to sign into his Google account neilgillespie@mfi.net. The Plaintiff is the person whom Google blocked from trying to sign in to his Google account. Exhibit 3: The Plaintiff forwarded the GOOGLE “Critical security alert” email to llespie@mfi.net that he received February 3, 2024 at 5:08 PM to the Clerk and the email addresses shown. In the email Google wrote: "Sign-in attempt was blocked” “neilgillespie@mfi.net" "Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your account. Google blocked them, but you should check what happened.” The Plaintiff is the person who used his password to sign into his Google account neilgillespie@mfi.net. The Plaintiff is the person whom Google blocked from trying to sign in to his Google account. -xhibit 4: The Plaintiff forwarded the GOOGLE “Critical security alert” email to neilgillespie@mfi.net that he received February 7, 2024 at 11:49 AM to the Clerk and the email addresses shown. In the email Google wrote: "Sign-in attempt was blocked” “neilgillespie@mfi.net" "Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your account. Google blocked them, but you should check what happened.” The Plaintiff is the person who used his password to sign into his Google account neilgillespie@mfi.net. The Plaintiff is the person whom Google blocked from trying to sign in to his Google account.Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 4 of 23 PagelD 602 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS 13. Paragraph 7 (DOC 11) shows that since the Complaint was filed on February 1, 2024, Google has notified me it blocked my legitimate sign-in attempt three times to my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net: Exhibit 2, February 2, 2024 at 5:19 PM Exhibit 3, February 3, 2024 at 5:08 PM Exhibit 4, February 7, 2024 at 11:49 AM 14, L verified under oath that I provided email evidence to the Clerk that Google has notified me it blocked my legitimate sign-in attempt four times to my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net: Exhibit 1, January 30, 2024 at 11:00 PM (Exhibit 15 to the Complaint for Replevin) Exhibit 2, February 2, 2024 at 5:19 PM Exhibit 3, February 3, 2024 at 5:08 PM Exhibit 4, February 7, 2024 at 11:49 AM 15, [have shown in my Complaint for Replevin (DOC 11), and proffered here, that Google has wrongly detained my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net. a. Google breached a duty of care owed to me; b. Google breached the Google Terms of Service and License with me; cc. Google is the cause of the breach of care and duty to me; d. I sustained damages as the result of Google’s unlawful detainer of my Google Account. 16. A prejudgment writ of replevin may be issued and the property seized delivered to the Plaintiff when the nature of the claim, the amount, and the grounds relied upon, clearly appear from specific facts shown by separate affidavit, Fla. Stat. sec 78.068(1). | provided my Affidavit, appearing in Appendix A, at Exhibit A.4, to the Complaint for Replevin (DOC 11) showing how my property became detained. A prejudgment writ of replevin may issue if the Court finds the defendant is engaging in, or is about to engage in, conduct that may place the claimed property in danger of destruction. Fla. Stat. sec. 78.068(2). The Complaint (DOC 11) alleges at Para. 6:Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 5 of 23 PagelD 603 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS 6. On August 20, 2023 the Plaintiff got an email from the Defendant Google LLC, “Updating our Google Account inactivity policy”. (Exhibit 9). The essence of the policy, “This change starts rolling out today and will apply to any Google Account that’s been inactive, meaning it has not been signed into or used within a two-year period. An inaetive account and any content in it will be eligible for deletion from December 1, 2023.” The Plaintiff will forever loose his intellectual property because he cannot sign into or use his Google, Blogger, or YouTube accounts. The Defendant Google LLC is ‘owned by the Defendant Alphabet, Inc. To obtain a prejudgment writ of replevin, a lawsuit is filed and the Plaintiff must post a bond for twice the value of the collateral or twice the balance due, “whichever is lesser as determined by the Court”. Fla. Stat. sec. 78.068(3). In this case I do not owe Google any “balance due”. Therefore no bond is required. In Florida a prejudgment writ of replevin shall issue only upon the signed order of a ci t court judge or a county court judge. Fla. Stat, sec. 18.0685). 17. In the alternative, | move under sec. 78.065(2) for an order to show cause: (2) If, upon examination of the complaint filed and on further showing of the plaintiff in support of it, the court finds that the defendant has not waived in accordance with s 78.075 his or her right to be notified and heard, the court shall promptly issue an order directed to the defendant to show cause why the claimed property should not be taken from the possession of the defendant and delivered to plaintiff. Such order shall: (a) Fix the date and time for hearing on the order. However, the date for the hearing shall not be set sooner than 5 days after the service of the order. (b) Direct the time within which service of the order and the complaint shall be made upon the defendant. (c) Fix the manner in which service of the order shall be made on the defendant. The order shall direct that service as provided by law shall be made on the defendant if such service is possible or, in the event the officer serving the order is unable to serve such defendant as provided by law within the time specified in paragraph (b), that the officer shall place the order, together with the summons, ‘on or in the claimed property or on the main entrance of the defendant’s residence. The officer's return shall state that the officer was unable to locate the defendant and how the order was served. (@) State that the nonpersonal service as provided herein shall be effective to afford notice to the defendant of the show cause order, but for no other purpose. (e) State that the defendant has the right to file affidavits on his or her behalf with the court and may appear personally or by way of an attorney and present testimony on his or her behalf at the time of the hearing, or that the defendant may, upon a finding by the court pursuant to s. 78.067(2) that the plaintiff isCase 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 6 of 23 PagelD 604 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS entitled to the possession of the claimed property pending final adjudication of the claims of the parties, file with the court a written undertaking executed by a surety approved by the court in an amount equal to the value of the property to stay an order authorizing the delivery of the property to the plaintiff. (A) State that if the defendant fails to appear the defendant shall be deemed to have waived his or her right to a hearing and that in such case the court may order the clerk of the court to issue a writ of replevin. 18 obtained Summonses for the Defendants (DOC 1-4) and was prepared to coordinate service through ABC Legal Services, Seattle, WA upon entry of a Florida order to show cause. 19. On March 1, 2024 I provided Mr. Whitaker my affidavit with an offer to settle the lawsuit with his clients Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC. 20. The Affidavit of Neil J. Gillespie, Offer to settle lawsuit with Google (DOC 12, at page ID 590 and page ID 591) states in part, beginning at Paragraph 2: -2600 ker 2. On February 29, 2024 I received a phone call in my office at 4:00 PM at 352. from attorney Damon J. Whitaker, of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP. Mr. WI called me as c0-counsel for ALPHABET INC, and GOOGLE LLC, in my replevin lawsuit to recover my Google account neilgillespie@mfi.net, ease no. 5:24-cv-00101, USDC, MDFL, Ocaia Div., removed from the Marion County Florida Circuit Court, case no. 2024-CA-0209. 3. L told Mr. Whitaker we could settle this case if Google would allow me to login to my account using the correct email address and correct password. Mr. Whitaker declined my offer. 4, Mr. Whitaker said Google has security protocols in place that they follow and Google cannot confirm that | own my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net because I no longer have the phone number (352-615-3819) associated with my account. 5. Mr. Whitaker acknowledged my written correspondence with Google to resolve this issue. Google did not respond to my written correspondence. 6. Mr. Whitaker asked me if I had contacted Google customer service. I responded that Google does not have customer service. 7. Mr. Whitaker asked if | went through the process to indicate that | don’t have the phone anymore. I responded that I did so. Also, see the Complaint for Replevin, pages 13-16 and exhibits 15-20; and see my Verified Motion for Writ of Replevin, filed in the Florida court on February 8, 2024, exhibits 1-4, and the Affidavit of Neil J. GillespieCase 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 7 of 23 PagelD 605 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS May 12, 2022 about my phone number (352-615-3819) associated with my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net. 8. | asked Mr. Whitaker to provide me a contact for customer service. He responded, there are processes in place to keep things updated and to then get access through the security protocol, 9. | responded there is no customer service to call, and the security protocol, as stated in my Complaint for Replevin, is ultimately a “rabbit hole” of futile suggestions. Complaint, page 16: The only option Google provides is a link, “More tips to recover your account”. In regard to the Plaintiff's Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.ne, the link is ultimately a “rabbit hole” of futile suggestions 10. | reiterated Google does not have customer service, that a number of YouTube users have grievances with Google, and its time someone took a stand, that Google is like an omnipresent government, a world government, with a compete disregard for people. I reminded Mr. Whitaker of an advertisement suggesting Google will be watching you as an omnipresent government. See the DuckDuckGo "Watching You" TV advertisement, with their version of "Every Breath You Take” by The Police”: “Every search you make, every click you take, every move you make, every step you take, I'll be watching you”, bhuips://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSS3Xndecal 11. Lalso expressed to Mr. Whitaker that Google is unreasonable for its refusal to give me access to my Google Account with a valid email address and valid password, requiring a lawsuit that may last years, and that | am prepared to do so: It's David against Goliath, | told him. 12. Mr. Whitaker said he would pass my comments on to his contacts for a response. lawsuit. 21. As of today, Mr. Whitaker has not responded to my offer to settle this reple 22, The state court civil cover sheet shows a Complaint for Replevin. (DOC 11) This lawsuit is only a state court replevin action to recover my property that is being wrongly detained by Google LLC: My Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net. I contend the removal to federal court was improper. On March 1, 2024, | emailed Mr. Whitaker in part: “Regarding my Complaint for Replevin, it is only a complaint for replevin. This is not a section 1983 lawsuit, etc. | simply illustrated further claims that might be brought. However, you have removed the case to federal court, so I will proceed on that basis.”Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 8 of 23 PagelD 606 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS. 23. On March 4, 2024, | emailed Brett B. Goodman, Esq. at brett@goodmanlawape.com, and Mr. Whitaker, with an offer to settle this lawsuit for all the Defendants, including the class action claim in Esposito et al. v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Mr. Goodman has not entered his appearance in this case, but his name appears on the Notice of Removal (DOC 1), on the Certificate of Service for the Verizon Defendants and Tracfone. 24. On Monday March 4, 2024, I provided the Complaint for Replevin, Notice of Removal, and other documents on all the Defendants by U.S. Mail as provided by: Rule 4(d) Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons Rule 4(d) Waiver of the Service of the Summons Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1,902(¢)(1) Notice of Commencement of Action Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1,902(c)(2) Waiver if Service of Process | also provided the forgoing by email to Mr. Whitaker, Mr. Goodman, Ezequiel Romero, Esq., and Avi Jon, Esq. and Benjamin Margo, Esq of Wilson Son: 25. As of today, Mr. Whitaker has not offered or attempted to settle this laws for his clients Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC; my offer to settle this case expired March 6, 2024. 26. On March 13, 2024 Mr. Goodman called me at my office and said, inter alia, that | should have access my Tracfone account for my alternate recovery phone number 352-850-5009. ‘After the call I checked and found | could not login to my Tracfone account for #352-850-5009. My notes to Mr. Goodman appear at Exhibit 2. (without attachments due to page limits). 27 The docket in 5:24-ev-00101 shows Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Romero of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP represent Google. The docket shows Mr. Don of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represents Google. The docket entry at DOC 11 on the CM/ECF docket shows: COMPLAINT against All Defendants with Jury Demand filed by Neil J. Gillespie. Filed in state court on 02/01/2024. (HAI) (Entered: 03/07/2024)Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 9 of 23 PagelD 607 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS, Therefore, | believe Alphabet and Google have been served my Complaint for Replevin. Nonetheless, | will request federal summonses and serve the Defendants again. 28. Mr. Whitaker and Mr. Romero are members of The Florida Bar. Therefore, I believe Google has been served in the Florida case 2024-CA-0209 as provided by Fla. 8. Gen. Prac. & Jud, Admin 2.516 (b)(1)(A), because as counsel for Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC, each were served the complaint on March 7, 2024 in 5:24-cv-00101 on the CM/ECF system. 29. Mr. Whitaker contests that Alphabet and Google have been served, and contends that Alphabet and Google have until April 3, 2024 to return a waiver of service. 30. On Mareh 12, 2024 provided evidence to Mr. Whitaker and co-counsel that Google likely violated the Fourth Amendment, and the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, by sending me unwelcome emails of a sexual nature through GOOGLE CLASSROOM and GOOGLE MEET to me at neilgillespie@mfi.net on March 10, 2024 and February 3, 2024. 31. On March 13, 2024 provided evidence to Mr. Whitaker et al of new claims: (Exhibit 2) Mr. Whitaker, Please take notice (second) of new claims in 5:24-cv-00101. ‘On August 18, 2014 I created the Dissolve The Florida Bar blog, DissolveTFB. blogspot http://dissolvetfb.blogspot.com/ with my Google Account dissolvetf>@igmail.com My only post was made August 18, 2014, Subversive Organization: The Florida Bar hittp:/dissolvetfb. blogspot.com/20 14/08/subversive-organization-florida-bar.htm! "Section 876.05 of the Florida Statutes requires all employees of the state to take a loyalty oath to "support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Florida.” However The Florida Bar recently disclosed it does not have section 876.05 loyalty oaths for its employees. Therefore, on information and personal belief, The Florida Bar is a “subversive organization" within the meaning of Chapter 876, Florida Statutes, Criminal Anarchy, Treason, and Other Crimes Against Public Order, and "shall be dissolved" as provided by section 876.26, Fla.Stat..Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 10 of 23 PagelD 608 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS ‘The Blogger profile for my Google Account dissolvetf>@gmail.com hitps://www.blogger.com/profile/09440083834237528173 Unfortunately I cannot log into my Google Account "dissolvetf@gmail.com" using the correct email address, and the correct password, because "Google doesn't have enough info to be sure this account is yours.” (Exhibit 3) Google sent me a verification code to my Google recovery email "dissolvetfb@inbox.com", but Inbox sent me a message stating "Your account does not exist anymore. We are sorry, but your account has been canceled due to inactivity”. My blog post is accompanied by the following Scribd PDFs 9 FlaJur2d Civil Servants, Sec. 111 Loyalty Oath CONNELL vy. HIGGINBOTHAM ET AL. 403 U.S. 207 (1971) Florida Bar 2012 Hawkins Commission FULL REPORT, Review of Discipline System Florida Bar 2012 Hawkins Commission Report, Survey Results Federal Judges Florida Bar 2012 Hawkins Commission Report, Survey Results State Judges Florida Bar 2012 Hawkins Commission Report, page 24 (102), State Judge Response For some reason Google is the only company that has continued to block access to my online accounts, which happen to criticize the government, specifically the judicial branch, Clearly the Google security protocols in place are ineffective, making Google products such as Blogger, Gmail, and YouTube, defective. Attached you will find PDF evidence of the defective Blogger product. 32. On March 2, 2024 I provided evidence to Mr. Whitaker et al that Google's unlawful detainer of my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net has caused me damage in my business; | am unable to respond to reader requests to make news posts, like this request by Emma Carey: Hi there Neil, | saw your page nosueorg.blogspot.com/, and I wanted to thank you for supporting the Black community. As this month we're celebrating Black History Month, I looked into some resources to share with my contacts. Actually, that's how I found your piece, which | recommended to some friends :) | thought some of my other findings might also be relevant to your readers. One of them, which a lot of my friends appreciated, is an article that lists more than 150 Black-owned businesses in North America. I was so happy to see that some people care about helping these companies thrive! The article is here: hitps://www.websiteplanet.com/blog/support-black-owned- businesses!Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 11 of 23 PagelD 609 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS I think sharing this list on your page would be a great way to help promote these Black- owned sites and stores. | think it will be a great addition to your site and that your audience will love this new resource! 33. RICO, The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" to file acivil suit. The refusal of Google to provide my property that is being wrongly detained involves issues that may be raised in an amended complaint. 34. On March 12, 2024, I provided Mr. Goodman evidence of new claims against Verizon: My letter Sep-12-2022 to Manon Brouillette, EVP and CEO, Verizon Consumer Group, for violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal and state consumer law, and perhaps Florida criminal law, for its offenses regarding my Verizon account My letter Jan-02-2023 to Vandana Venkatesh, Verizon EVP & Chief Legal Officer My letter to McCarthy, Burgess & Wolfe, Verizon debt collector 35. The conduct of Verizon and Google affects interstate trade and commerce. For example, as pled in GANNETT CO INC v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET INC, US. rict Court, Southern District of New York, case no. 1:23-ev-5177: 14, Google’s scheme has been wildly profitable, For example, in 2022 alone, Google made $30 billion from manipulating auctions for ad space across the internet. That is six times more revenue than every single U.S. news publication made from digital advertising, combined. Google, as middleman, has dwarfed the content creators that invest in journalists, editors, photographers, and many others to produce important news content. 20. Defendant Alphabet Inc. (“Alphabet”) is a publicly traded company incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and headquartered in Mountain View, California, Alphabet was created as a holding company for Google in late 2015, and Alphabet controls Google’s day-to-day operations. Virtually all of Alphabet’s, revenue comes from Google. Since December 2019, Alphabet and Google have had the same Chief Executive Officer. As a result of Alphabet’s operational control, Google is Alphabet’ alter ego. This Complaint refers to Google and Alphabet together as “Google.” 21. This action arises under Sections | and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-2, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15 and 26. The Court has subject- matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 4, and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337(a). uCase 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 12 of 23 PagelD 610 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS 36. Through unjust enrichment, Google has purchased companies like Blogger and YouTube, and harmed consumers like me wi es. Virtually every wireless phone contains Google Pe which is an unweleome violation of privacy and the Fourth Amendment: “Every search you make, every click you take, every move you make, every step you take, I'll be watching you”. A Family sued Google after Maps directed their father off a collapsed bridge. And | understand a number of states, and the US Dept. of Justice, have brought anti-trust cases against Google. MEMORANDIUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF A WRIT OF REPLEVIN 37. Replevin “is, in general, an action in which the owner, or a person who has a general or special interest in some personalty either taken or detained by another, seeks to recover possession in specie, and, occasionally, the recovery of damages as an incident of the I Procedure 64 proceedings.” Replevin, 7 American Law of Torts § 24:17. Federal Rule of specifically contemplates that federal courts will issue writs of replevin, specifying that the law of a forum state will govern except insofar as federal law applies. There is authority under the Florida Statutes, Chapter 78, Replevin: 78.01 Right of replevin—Any person whose personal property is wrongfully detained by any other person or officer may have a writ of replevin to recover said personal property and any damages sustained by reason of the wrongfil taking or detention as herein provided. Notice of lis pendens to charge third persons with knowledge of plaintiff's claim on the property may be recorded, 78.03 Jurisdiction—An action for replevin must be brought in a court of competent Jurisdiction based on the value of the property sought to be replevied. When property consists of separate articles, the value of any one of which is within the jurisdiction of a lower court but taken together will exceed that jurisdiction, the plaintiff may not divide the property to give jurisdiction to the lower court to enable the plaintiff to bring separate actions therefor. 78.032 Venue.—An action for replevin may be brought in any county where the property sought to be replevied is located, where the contract was signed, where the defendant resides, or where the cause of action accrued. An action that includes a cause of act 12Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 13 of 23 PagelD 611 A 38. PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN GAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS for replevin and other causes of action may be brought in any county where venue is proper under chapter 47 for any of the other causes of action or in any county where venue for the replevin is proper under this section. 78.045 Writ; court order required —No clerk of court shall issue a writ of replevin prior to final judgment unless there has been filed with the clerk of court an order authorizing the issuance of such writ of replevin 8.055 Complaint; requirements—To obtain an order authorizing the issuance of a writ of replevin prior to final judgment, the plaintiff shall first file with the clerk of the court a complaint reciting and showing the following information: (1) A description of the claimed property that is sufficient to make possible its identification and a statement, to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff of the value of such property and its location, (2) A statement that the plaintiff is the owner of the claimed property ors entitled to possession of it, describing the source of such title or right. If the plaintiff's interest in such property is based on a written instrument, a copy of said instrument must be attached to the complaint. (3) A statement that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, the means by which the defendant came into possession thereof, and the cause of such detention according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff. (4) A statement that the claimed property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine pursuant to law. (5) A statement that the property has not been taken under an execution or attachment against the property of the plaintiff or, if so taken, that it is by law exempt from such taking, setting forth a reference to the exemption law relied upon In the alternative, federal common law provides for issuance of a writ of replevin, The ‘common law tradition hold “[t]he primary relief sought in a replevin is the return of the identical property, and damages are merely incidental.” 66 Am. Jur. 2d Replevin sec 1. 39. ‘The Legal Information Institute (LI1) of Cornell Law School describes replevin at https://www.law.comnell.edu/wex/teplevin 1. Anaction seeking return of personal property wrongfully taken or held by the defendant, Rules on replevin actions vary by jurisdiction, See State Civil Procedure Rules; Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Creditors use replevin actions to recover collateral when debtors default on secured loans. For example, a bank might file a replevin action against a borrower to repossess the borrower's car after he missed too many payments. See Debtor and Creditor Law.Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 14 of 23 PagelD 612 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS 2. A.wrt authorizing the retaking of property by its rightful owner (ie. the remedy sought by replevin actions). Replevin may be ordered as a final judgment, or in some jurisdictions, as a provisional remedy. 40. Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Seizing a Person or Property states: hutps://www.law.cornell.edu/tules/frep/rule_64 (a) Remedies Under State Law—In General. At the commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure satisfaction of the potential judgment, But a federal statute governs to the extent it applies. (b) Specific Kinds of Remedies. The remedies available under this rule include the following—however designated and regardless of whether state procedure requires an independent action: + arrest; + attachment; + garnishment; + replevin; + sequestration; and + other corresponding or equivalent remedies. 41. ‘The American Bar Association reported a replevin case by the United States against Peter K. Navarro, a former White House advisor, “What is a writ of replevin? It's being used by the DOJ against former White House adviser, by Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA, September 27, 2022, psn abou comwebaticlevhatsa-wni-oreplevnet-heing-wsed-by-thedo-aainstfooner-whiehowe-avier 42. The case is United States of America v. Peter K. Navarro, no. 1:22-cv-2292, United States District Court, District of Columbia, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly presiding. ‘The United States sued Peter K. Navarro, former Deputy Assistant to then-President Donald |. Trump, for the return of public records belonging to the United States. On March 9, 2023, Judge Kollar-Kotelly entered Order and Judgment (DOC 15) that denied a defense motion to dismiss, and granted the United States’ motion for Summary Judgment, with further instructions.Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 15 of 23 PagelD 613 PLAINTIFF*S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS. 43. Separately, Judge Kollar-Kotelly entered a Memorandum Opinion (DOC 16) finding no dispute of material fact that Navarro retained the records, nor any legal dispute that the District, of Columbia replevin statute, D.C. Code § 16-3702, provided a cause of action for theit return 44, In this case, Gillespie v. Google et al, 1 am asking the Court for a finding of no dispute of material fact that | own my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net, and that the Florida replevin statue provides a cause of action to return my Google Account to me, through by loggin on with my correct email address, and my correct account password. My replevin case is not about “recovery” of a Google Account with the wrong email or wrong password. 45. On Tuesday | provided evidence that Google has wrongly detained my Google Account is a Google Critical security alert email of March illespie@mfi.net. Appearing at Exh 13, 2024, Sign-in attempt was blocked, forwarded to Mr. Whitaker et al on March 19, 2024, Dear Mr. Whitaker, Forwarded below is a Google "Critical security alert” email to neilgillespie@mfi.net that, I received Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 9:17 AM. In the email Google wrote: "Sign-in attempt was blocked” "neilgillespie@mfi.net" "Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your account. Google blocked them, but you should check what happened." am the person who used my password to sign into my Google account neilgillespie@mfi.net, and I'am the person whom Google blocked from trying to sign in to my Google account. Thank you. ‘Now Mr. Whitaker et al have personal knowledge of Google's unlawful detainer of my account. 46. Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s Memorandum Opinion (DOC 16) states at the bottom of page 17, section “C. Replevin”: Finally, the Court agrees with the United States that the District of Columbia’s reple statute provides a cause of action for the return of Dr, Navarro’s unlawfully retained documents, Replevin “is, in general, an action in which the owner, or a person who has a general or special interest in some personalty either taken or detained by another, seeks to 15Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 16 of 23 PagelD 614 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS, recover possession in specie, and, occasionally, the recovery of damages as an incident of the proceedings.” Replevin, 7 American Law of Torts § 24:17 (West 2022). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 expressly contemplates that federal courts will issue writs of replevin, or other corresponding or equivalent remedies, specifying that the law of a forum state will govern except insofar as federal law applies. District of Columbia law creates an action for replevin, allowing a Plaintiff “to recover personal property to which the plaintifT is entitled, that ... [has] been wrongfully taken by or to be in the possession of and wrongfully detained by the defendant.” D.C. Code 16-3701.4. The “essence” of a replevin action under D.C. law is the “wrongful withholding of the property in question.” Hunt v. DePuy Orthopedics, Inc., 729 F. Supp. 2d 231, 232 (D.D.C. 2010). Where, as where, a party has wrongfully detained property belonging to the United States, the United States has sued for the return of the property See, e.g., United States v. McElvenny, 02-cv-3027, 2003 WL 1741422, at*l (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2003) (seeking a writ of replevin for map of Cuba bearing notations made by President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis and a collection of President Kennedy's papers regarding federal involvement in the integration of the University of Mississippi). 47. My Google Account is identified with my name, neilgllespsie@mfi.net, in the email itself, and my image on the Google "Critical security alert" email to neilgillespie@mfi.net that | received Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 9:17 AM. (Exhibit 1). My three Goggle blogs each display my name, email address, photograph, and other personally identifying information. 48, The Court in Navarro addressed a point Mr. Whitaker made to me, that my Google Account is not the type of property subject to replevin. The Court found: (DOC 16, pp 20-21) Dr. Navarro’s final argument is that Presidential records are not subject to replevin law because they are not personal property. “Personal property” is the complement to “real property,” and itis well-established that personal property encompasses “[a]ny moveable or intangible thing that is subject to ownership and not classified as real property.” Property, Black’s Law Dictionary (1 Ith ed. 2019). The history of the PRA makes it plain that Presidential records plainly fall into this broad definition, whether they are physical ‘objects (like the map sought in United States v. McElvenny) or electronic records (like the emails in Karroum). Therefore, in Nixon v. United States, the D.C. Cireuit—prior to the enactment of the PRA—held that presidential materials were the President's personal property. 978 F.2d 1269, 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The passage of the PRA in 1978 changed the ownership of Presidential records, converting them from being the personal property of the president into the personal property of the United States. See 44 U.S.C. § 2202. Their fundamental character as Presidential records is as personal property. That these records are electronic as opposed to paper make no difference to their character. 16Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 17 of 23 PagelD 615 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS See Armstrong, | F.3d at 1283 (emails are records under the Presidential Records Act and therefore constitute personal property). 49. The Google Terms of Service declare the content of my Google Account is my property. WHEREFORE, I move this Honorable Court under FRCP 64 and Fla, Stat. 78.065(1) for a writ of replevin to recover my Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net that is being unlawfully detained by Google. In the alternative, | move for an Order to Show Cause under Fla. Stat 78.065(2), and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable. RESPCTFULLY SUBMITTED March 21, 2024, 2801 SW COLLEGE RD, STE 3 OCALA, FL 34474-4430 Phone: 352-239-9037 (wireless) Phone: 352-581-2600 (land line) Primary email: celticein@yahoo.com (E-Service) Secondary email: Neil4Justice@yahoo.com Certification - Local Rule 3.01(g) Mr. Whitaker emailed me Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 3:05 PM: Lam responding to your three emails sent yesterday, the below of which appears to be the operative email on given its designation as “Second corrected email” and that it was the last one you sent on the subject. We respectfully disagree that Alphabet and Google have been properly served with the ‘Complaint and Summons for several reasons: 1) the Florida state procedural rule you cite does not apply because the case is subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Florida rule does not apply to service of the initial pleading (your complaint and summons) regardless; 2) service of the Complaint alone via the Middle District of Florida's CM/ECF system on Alphabet and Google’s counsel is not proper service of either of our clients under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h); 7Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 18 of 23 PagelD 616 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS 3) you have never effected personal service of the Complaint and Summons on either Alphabet or Google; and 4) Alphabet and Google are still considering your request to waive service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4() and have until April 3, 2024 to do so. As for your proposed Motion for a Writ of Replevin, while Local Rule 1.06(c) pro that all motions pending in the state court action before removal are denied without prejudice if not re-filed within twenty-one days after removal in a form that complies with the Local Rules, we note the Court’s Order issued March 5, 2024 by Chief Judge Corrigan stayed all deadlines except for an answer or other response to the Complaint under Rule 12. (Dkt. 7 at p. 2, para 5.) Further, as we explained during our February 29 telephonic meet and confer on Alphabet and Google’s upcoming Rule 12 Motion to Dismiss, there is no viable claim for replevin. Accordingly, Alphabet and Google oppose any such Motion on both procedural and substantive grounds. DECLARATION I, Neil J. Gillespie, declare as follows, under 28 U.S.C. § 1746(2): 1. Lam the Plaintiff in the present Complaint for Replevin, | am a citizen of the United States of America, and a citizen of the State of Florida. 2. The Google Account neilgillespie@mfi.net that is the subject of this Complaint for Replevin belongs to me alone, and no other person, 3. Thave personal knowledge of myself, my activities, and my intentions, including those set out in the foregoing motion, and if called on to testify | would competently testify as to the matters stated herein. 4, I verify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 21, 2024. eil'J, Gillespie 18Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 19 of 23 PagelD 617 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSED, AMENDED, VERIFIED MOTION FOR WRIT OF REPLEVIN AGAINST GOOGLE, OR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE TO SERVE ON THE DEFENDANTS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on March 21, 2024, | furnished a true and correct copy of the foregoing by email to the names below, and to the Court on the Electronic Document Submission Web Portal (Web Portal) for service by the Court’s Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system to the names required to be served, today March 21, 2024 or as soon as possible by the Court. Damon J. Whitaker, damon.whitaker@belplaw.com Ezequiel Romero, ezequiel.romero@belplaw.com Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP (Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC) Benjamin Margo, bmargo@wsgr.com Avishai Don, adon@ wsgr.com Wilson Sonsini (Alphabet Inc. and Google LLC) ‘And by email only (the District Clerk may add to the CM/ECF) Vandana Venkatesh, vandana.venkatesh@verizon.com Verizon Executive Vice President & Chief Legal Ofticer Brett B. Goodman, Esq. at brett@goodmanlawape.com (not of record) (the Verizon Defendants and Tracfone)Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 20 of 23 PagelD 618 Fw: Critical security alert From: Neil J. Gillespie (celticein@yahoo.com) To: damon.whitaker@bclplaw.com; celticein@yahoo.com; adon@wsgr.com; bmargo@wsgr.com; ezequiel,romero@belplaw.com; brett@goodmanlawapc.com; neildjustice@yahoo,com Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 at 03:59 PM EDT Damon J. Whitaker Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP One Atlantic Center 14th Floor 1201 W. Peachtree St., N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309-3471 RE: Google Critical security alert, Sign-in attempt was blocked Dear Mr. Whitaker, Forwarded below is a Google "Critical security alert" email to neilgillespie@mfi.net that I received Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 9:17 AM. In the email Google wrote: "Sign-in attempt was blocked" “neilgillespie@mfi.net" "Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your account. Google blocked them, but you should check what happened." Tam the person who used my password to sign into my Google account neilgillespie@mfi.net, and I am the person whom Google blocked from trying to sign in to my Google account. Thank you. Sincerely, /s/ NEIL J. GILLESPIE, Plaintiff pro se 2801 SW College Rd., STE 3Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 21 of 23 PagelD 619 Ocala, FL 34474 Tel: 352-239-9037 (wireless) Tel: 352-581-2600 (land line) Em: elticein@yahoo.com (Florida Portal E-Service)] Email: Neil4Justice@yahoo.com ~~ Forwarded Message -—~ From: Google To: “neilgillespie@mfi.net" Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2024 at 09:17:40 AM EDT Subject: Critical security alert Google Sign-in attempt was blocked @ neilgillespie@mfi.net Someone just used your password to try to sign in to your account. Google blocked them, but you should check what happened. Check activity You can also see security activity at https://myaccount.google.com/notifications You received this email to let you know about important changes to your Google Account and services. © 2024 Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USADissolve The Florida Bar Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Wore Dissolve The Florida Bar hitp://dissolvetfh. blogspot.com/ Page 22 of 23 PagelD 620 create Bg Signin Monday, August 18,2014 Subversive Organization: The Florida Bar Stcton 7625 ofthe Fld States equal employes ofthe tata ake yay oth "euport the Conatuten ofthe Utes States ado the Sate of lia” However Te Flr Bar ocany ord does ot ave acon BTECS lyon frit employes Tart, a infrmaton a peso! beet, The Ftd Chapera6, Foie Sates, Ciara Araya ard Cher Cres Aare Pte Cu, an shall be ssa a5 provid scton S726, FS £7625 Unew or subversive cxguzatons tal oc fnetin — "anal unlawl for any aber at Loyal Oat 057 ‘i pc empoyes are requ cf Frida. An employee wi fuses toe te eau yay oath mut be cared 2 lav alas rom pul mloymentisunconstuonal an tltan ofthe Sat of Fed and othe Unted Str of Ama” ken (5 Ff. e765 ln Sat Fra $7606 Fd. Comey gitar, 43 US. 207,915. 772,281. Ed 24418197. Fo 7605, FS Fas. iy of Ofanc Stat of ia, 71 F.Supp 976M. Fl. 190) ‘ONNELL » HGGNBOTWANETAL 40908. 207 (87H) scolar google canischola_cse?cases17THA0326017020847 No.7, prem Court of Ute Sat ArguedNovember 8, 1970 APPEAL FROM THE UNTED STATES DISTRICT COURT Sanford Jey Rsan agus the case fr a ‘Wit bim onthe ri were Toi Sinan and Mlvin Walt Stephen Mae Sein argued he caus for appalss. ‘With on th bi er Rivers Buford, and James W Markel eR CURWN ‘ppelants employment a ‘he fe clauses contained into eath to be unconstutonal and nine th Stat from conning 2 tmploymanton the aking af noth nung he nguage dele conto. Th paron fh iti Cott decison wich upd swear atin (atl wl support the Constuion fhe United Sta | ot seve inthe ovartrow fhe Government ote Une tatoo the Sat of lida fre or ‘She was inerviowedby he principal of Calan Ekmenay Schl, and on January 27,199, ppelan was Lof 8 is "uber organization” win the meaning of ezine fergn subversive organization tei or futon inte xy oganzaton which by 2 court of competent justin is fund to have vlad te provisions of ake noah o support the Constuon fhe United Stats ano the State Te ots eure or pln te suppor the lta oer Conte i contitionay a ‘Aug th cath lr tothe alan! sbi alan fhe United States ad Stato] ban ns may use amedied ooh wit te words "a This ian appeal fam an aetonconmancedin the Une Stites Dstt Cou forthe Mie Dic ofFlode chalnging the conetuoaly of 760587610 tl, Stat 185), ad the various lop exe upon which cal wachr was condone. Te teejugpe U.S, iste! Court dele vee of oft State of Ford" an (2) "hat ‘On January 161968 apenas aplaton or acing poston wth te Orange County schoo syst, Solve Dissowe TB iow my complete pote Disclaimer of Dissolve TFB Disclsimer of Dissolve TF: Information povided heres a ee publi service ile ‘he information eal wth legal sues, oes nt consi lga advice you have ‘spetife questions rte the formation _valabe here, you are encouraged to Const an atone wh can investigate the particular ceurstancee of your stuatlon, Bote the apy changing nature of th law and ou reliance on nfrmation provided by ‘utd souess, Dissolve TF does nat ‘warranty or guarantee the acuracy or avalblty ofthe content here or on ther ties orks tert, lo event wil Dissolve TF be eld able o any panty for any damages arising in any way outof the ‘val use, raancs ono nb to use the information provided reo fr any iam atrbutable to eer, omissions or ‘other naecuaces nor destructive properties of any infomation provided by or ‘rough this information. Dissolve TFB: Does nt give legal advice. 2-fsnot lawyer {isnot an attorney 4 ' not Keensed to practice law 5, Of not goto law schoo, Sigod Ossohe TF. Blog Archive ¥ 214th) ¥ August(t) ‘Subversive Organization: The Florida Bar Sci 3/13/2024, 9:53 AMBlogger hhttps://accounts.google.comy/v3/signin/rejected?TL=ADg0xROOMdS71. Case 5:24-cv-00101-MMH-PRL Document 15 Filed 03/21/24 Page 23 of 23 PagelD 621 (G_ Google sign-in has anew look Learn more We've improved the sign-in page with a more modern design G Can't sign you in (© dissoivetto@gmailcom > ) You can't recover your account at this time because Google doesn't have enough info to be sure this account is yours. If you want to create a new account to use Google's services, be sure to add a recovery phone or email address and keep them up to date. Learn more about recovery information English (UnitedStates) > Help Privacy Terms Ie Loft 3/13/2024, 10:29 AM