Professor John L. Hennessy Breach of Fiduciary Duty to the Alphabet Shareholders?

 Google Spends Millions of Dollars in Legal Costs

to LOSE Australian Lawsuits

Between August 2013 and December 2017 I wrote approximately 125 emails to Professor John L. Hennessy, former President of Standford University, Board Member of Google (since 2004), and, from 2019, Chair of the Board of Google’s parent company, Alphabet.

Despite my notice in the initial emails that Professor Hennessy was quite welcome to block my email address, he read almost all of them. In fact, I could only find 4 that were not read. How do I know? I tracked them using Pointofmail.com.

From 2009 I tracked all my emails to Google. Its Australian lawyers were aware of my email tracking and this evidence was put into the trial books in Duffy v Google Inc, [2015] SASC 27 October. I informed the Google Australia lawyers Michael Takeuchi and Chris Govey about the emails early in the trial. I presumed they told Google USA!

If Professor Hennessy has any objections to being tracked he can take it up with Google Australia and Ashurst Australia because I was completely transparent, unlike Google.

Here is a fun fact: According to the Pointofmail.com data, Professor John L. Hennessy does not use Google products. He uses Apple iPhone, not Android, and Apple Safari and Mozilla Firefox, not Google Chrome. I wonder if there is something he knows about Google products and is not telling the world?

These are examples of ‘read’ notifications from Pointofmail.com:

Links to PDF’s of some emails are provided in this blog post but a selection of the emails, including proof that they were read, can be downloaded from my cloud drive, adrive.com. It is a paid subscription (I don’t trust Google Drive) and virus free. This is the link:

Why I am Publishing the Emails to Professor John L. Hennessy

I have to say that I was reluctant to publish these emails for a number of reasons:

  • I really did not want to sink to the level of Google. For example, they send Australian legal documents to third party shill websites for the purpose of setting people up for humiliation and harassment because they asked for the removal of defamatory content.
  • In retaliation for losing in 2015 Google set its shills on me. They sent threats to my blog (and later my home) and published posts designed to inflict ridicule and humiliation. One of those websites, Lumen Database published my address online along with links to the content found defamatory by four Supreme Court Justices.
  • The provision of my home address to trolls resulted in threats of harm placed in my letterbox and abusive phone calls to my late father’s landline. I lived in fear for many months.
  • Some of my emails show the abject distress of the legal process: As I wrote in a Medium.com post, the whole process of going to trial against Google with 18 days notice and no legal experience was absolutely horrendousThe severe deleterious impact of the trial, the accompanying online harassment (there was media even before the trial), and my win on my mental and physical health was supported by Google’s own medical expert.

The reason I have decided to put these emails online and sent them to the attorneys for the Google shareholders is simply that I have had enough of the protracted bullying by Google.  Besides, Google’s lawyers keep telling me that their client believes in free speech!

Google is using its dominant power to make decisions about content that destroys the lives, families and livelihoods of Australians. They knowingly publish websites (like Ripoff Report and many other shaming websites) that profit from extorting victims of defamation, send back legal Concerns Notices marked ‘return to sender’, and, if it grants removal requests, they are incomplete.

Google is currently spending literally millions of dollars on legal costs on a strategy of bullying and ‘deep pocketing’ any Australian litigants into ‘going away’ in an attempt to scare ordinary Australians from taking legal action and law firms from representing them. The strategy is not new. Large corporations typically try to deep pocket and bully plaintiffs into dropping their lawsuits or settling for a pittance. 

The Emails to Professor John L. Hennessy

These emails to Professor Hennessy prove he knows that Google is using its superior economic power with the aim of  pounding any Australian litigants into submission. To my best knowledge there are currently four defamation claims against Google In Australia. As His Honour Justice Blue noted in a decision in my trial, all that I wanted (and most litigants want) is for the defamatory imputations to be removed and the abuse to stop.

These claims are Duffy v Google, Defteros v Google, Sierocki v Google and Trkulja v Google. Of these, two are second claims: The plaintiffs  have already obtained a judgement against Google in an Australian Supreme Court and have needed to file a subsequent claim because Google treats the Australian legal system and plaintiffs with contempt. 

Advertising Boycott Email

In August 2013 I realised that Google was advertising on the most extreme offensive content on Ripoff Report, including racism, hate speech and content derogatory of women. So I devised an advertising boycott. By 2nd January 2014 all Google advertising had been removed from RipoffReport.com.

Google reinstated their advertising on Ripoff Report in April 2015 which just goes to show that the search engine does not really care about the type of content it peddles to the masses even if it incites hatred and violence as long as it gets its money. Examples of the reinstated advertising are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I included Professor Hennessy (among others) in the Advertising Boycott emails and was actually surprised when he read them. This is an example of an email and confirmation that it was read by Professor Hennessy and another Google Board member, Professor Shirley M Tilgeman. 

If read in the full context the emails (some of which are included in the download link above) show that at least two Google board members were aware that the corporation was profiting from extortion and the destruction of lives and livelihoods by the website Ripoff Report

The Google Trial Email

This is an example (and confirmation that it was read) of an email that I sent to Professor Hennessy in mid 2015 at the time of the defamation trial against Google. Some (but not all) of the 2015 emails are included in the download link above.

My distress is evident and it is very difficult to read them.  According to the Pointofmail.com data Professor Hennessy read some of the emails at length and/or forwarded them.  He could have blocked my email address, instructed his lawyers to tell me stop the emails, or ignored them.

With the benefit of time I wonder whether Professor John L. Hennessy actually enjoyed reading my abject distress. Perhaps if I had lost at trial and committed suicide it would have been an extra thrill.

Maybe the Google executives and board members actually view the decimation of lives by their hands as a sort of trophy or testament to their power? Maybe they think cruelty is necessary to prove their worth as technocrats and and human beings. 

For the life of me I cannot figure out how a corporation like Google justifies destroying people. It is certainly not freedom of speech. For the record Google is very quick to send its lawyers crying to the Adelaide court (from Sydney for a 10 minutes Directions Hearing) when I tweet something they dislike! I also wonder whether the Google lawyers fly all over the country in business class or take coach? 

The Litigation Costs Email

This is an example of an email (and read notice) to Professor Hennessy in which I notify him that I need to sue Google for defamation a second time. Another email is in my cloud drive file that can be downloaded from the link above. I have further emails that need to be sorted. 

Note that in both the 2015 Duffy v Google trial AND the appeal (both of which Google lost) the lawyers openly complained to the court about the financial cost of litigation to their client. Yet Google has refused to settle the second matter on reasonable terms which means another trial and at least another couple of million dollars.

I am now self-represented because Google tried to run up my legal costs – with some initial success.  I told Google that those tactics did not work in 2015 and they would not work now yet they continue to try and bully me into ‘going away while simultaneously complaining about their costs! Surely the shareholders should have the option of examining this practice. 

The Chairman of Alphabet Inc cannot deny knowledge of Google’s litigation costs in Australia. In light of the shareholders’ lawsuits over the exorbitant ‘exit packages’ paid to employees who sexually abused women I think it is time that the shareholders should be made aware of yet another area in which millions of dollars are wasted without their knowledge. That is my next task!