No. 19-5999

Natasha Delima v. YouTube, Inc., et al.

Lower Court: First Circuit
Docketed: 2019-09-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: antitrust censorship civil-procedure civil-rights digital-property due-process first-amendment platform-censorship retaliation standing virtual-property website-regulation
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment
Latest Conference: 2019-11-22
Question Presented (from Petition)

Why did the judge issue a "Motion for Leave " on all of the Petitioners pleadings? Why did the judge not issue a default ruling for the Respondents that failed to file for appearances in a timely manner?

Why did the judge issue a 3rd round of service after default for Go Fund Me? Why did the judge ignore the rule of law and enforceable Executive orders? Why did the judge ignore Virtual Property laws & enforce them on the Defendants (Respondents)?

Why did the judge operate with a bias against Pro-se Litigants & Virtual Property Owners? Why did the judge fail to reschedule a hearing after bereavement?

On appeal, why did that judge not issue a default rulings? Why did the court of appeals refuse to abide by the rule of law? Why did the appeals court not schedule oral argument? Since non-payment of earnings is illegal, why did the court not protect the Petitioner, the wage-earner?

Why were civil rights allowed to be violated, and for what reason? Why was retaliation allowed by the Respondents during the case and not ordered by the court to be ceased?

Why did the court allow for censorship, lockouts, false site violations, 6 month ban of the Petitioner 's virtual property? Why have the Respondents been allowed to delete, destroy, hack, and steal the Petitioners virtual property?

Why have the Respondents been allowed to deny civil rights to citizens? Why have Respondents been allowed to bypass USA laws, and operate by laws from another country while they are owned and operated in USA?

Why is a Website that allows for fundraisers able to deny fund raisers based on their bias? Why are Websites allowed to conglomerate by blacklisting a user, denying access to all web sites and all ways to generate income?

Why are courts, judges, the DA, the FBI, the DOJ not addressing the massive law violations and criminal acts being done to people that have a civil right to use social media?

Why can no one in a position to impose the law, and order these web sites to adhere to virtual property rights, in fact, do that, and charges the sites sanctions when they stop adhering to the law?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Why did the judge issue a 'Motion for Leave' on all of the Petitioners pleadings? Why did the judge not issue a default ruling for the Respondents that failed to file for appearances in a timely manner?

Docket Entries

2019-11-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
2019-10-25
Reply of petitioner Natasha Delima filed.
2019-10-18
Brief of respondent Patreon, Inc. in opposition filed.
2019-10-01
Waiver of right of respondents Google LLC; YouTube LLC; Twitter, Inc. to respond filed.
2019-09-24
Waiver of right of respondents Facebook, Inc. and GoFundMe, Inc. to respond filed.
2019-06-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 21, 2019)

Attorneys

Facebook, Inc. and GoFundMe, Inc.
Matan ShachamKeker, Van Nest & Peters, LLP, Respondent
Google LLC; YouTube LLC; Twitter, Inc.
David Antonio PerezPerkins Coie LLP, Respondent
Natasha Delima
Natasha Delima — Petitioner
Patreon, Inc.
Stephen Jackson SoulePaul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Respondent