This post covers everything that I could get, without subpoena, from PayPal.
Here is me digging up whatever I can from PayPal:
I have the original recording, this one is cut up a bit to get rid of the long hold times.
What did this establish? It established that I've been talking to PayPal since before the eBay sale (which I encouraged), and you can read more about what I did during 2002, 2003 and 2004 at PayPal in my book, A Universe of Interactions, which deals with both my scientific efforts and some of my "pro bono" (read as: uncompensated) work at PayPal, Microsoft, and a couple of other companies. It also established that there are some odd notes that appear on my account, made by managers.
"There's a problem with the gift at Christmas" - Manager, 2003, on Dec 26
"There were a lot of calls" - Manager, 2004
There are redacted notes and hidden parts of the record (evidence is left that the record has been altered or obfuscated or redacted by PayPal management).
My account was restricted in January of 2005 for the entirety of the year 2005.
"He's the video website guy" - Manager, 2009
In early 2009, PayPal enacted a new policy which forbid agents from giving the names of agents to agents (they made the records hide the names of agents, previously they provided first names - the reason they gave was that "you cannot tell the sex of agents anymore from their first names" .. this was most likely added because I kept calling and asking about a certain female account manager who witnessed the entire Chad Hurley call series, who I told the idea of YouTube to before Chad, and who I had hoped would show up in court at some point after we subpoenaed the information or otherwise tracked him/her down).
Just so you know, T-Mobile has a "don't record us policy", but they'll record you.
One of the anticipated defense moves was that they would deny that Chad could be contacted through PayPal "because he wasn't an employee there anymore" - so we wanted to prove that it was possible for me to have been transferred.
So, to set the scene, just a few minutes before I had called and asked this representative about the transfer policy for internal call transfers from Omaha, NE to San Jose, CA. She said that it was possible to transfer calls if you climbed up the chain to a manager.
Here's that original call:
The call recording, available below, begins the moment she called me back (like 5 minutes later). She had been informed, in the first call, that I was recording her. I have edited the audio below to remove the long hold times. The original is 60 minutes, this one is cut down to 28 minutes (just the parts where I talk to the people, not the long hold times or music / PayPal propaganda). I used this opportunity to dig as far into PayPal records about me as possible.
If you would like to just hear the part where Josh, a 5 year veteran of PayPal, basically dispels all doublespeak by previous managers, just listen to this short snippet of the last 7 minutes of the "PayPal Extraction":
PayPal Transfer Policy (short form version)
So, Google's attorney, David Kramer, has used Rule 11 "Sanction Motions" to thwart a number of cases at Google. It's not a required motion: it is a choice, and it is a choice that has a pattern of use at Google. We think Mr. Kramer has "optimized" his legal rhetoric to 1 strategy. This is probably an indicator that he is using it because it threatens lawyers with huge fines that may or may not be recouped during a trial, by bringing up the cost of the suit during its course. Later in the same case they are permitted to request fees and such, but this is always pre-emptive - and in my case, it happened outside the normal rules of procedure. This means that they don't want to play ball (discuss settlements). By risking a minor court infraction (lying) they can sway the judge and exit the case. Look at his other cases to see what kind of stuff he is claiming Google does or doesn't do - then ask yourself, are they lying? Maybe you won't agree with the other side, but read and carefully dissect the Google arguments. Then, think about news reports you've heard about Google's actual behavior (censorship, removing unwanted materials from search results, the Italian Google Executives case, the Google click-fraud stuff).
Here's a copy of his brief, where he outlines my "fantastic claims" to having invented xyz. Yes, I wrote some of the things he quotes. Yes, I did the things I said. Though I feel time travel is possible, I have never done it myself except in the forward direction. Sadly, I aged while I did it.
Chad wins completely new award "Streamy" ("2nd annual")
So, in the midst of all this, they create this awards show and Chad has a couple interviews. In this one, he's arrogant and egotistical, in the other he is forced to respond to the question "How did you come up with that?" and talks about "everyone's asking that question tonight", of how he came up with the idea - which he dances around with his standard "I just wanted to focus on the basics" and "made it simple" ... it means more work for me - I have lots of micro-expressions to catalog from these two (one HD) interviews.
My favorite interview at the 2010 Streamys with Chad is one early interview that evening. Keep in mind that Chad has video depositions scheduled with us for May 6, 2010 at this point. He sort of mentions "we'll see how these things end up - see how these videos end up online ... see how many views they get" probably because they expected us to leak our depositions.
YouTube rolls out new PR, eliminating a video of Chad with Michael Lui (?) where Chad refers to people at his company as "minions" (who do his work for him because he's "just so busy"). In fact, he alludes to being "busy" in the HD Streamy interview: so busy in fact that we've had to delay repeatedly our court case out of what I can only describe as professional generosity.
I remember, when my attorney called me with yet another "delay" request by Google, which he had already agreed to (thus: I had agreed to it), I responded: "You have to learn to start saying 'No' to these people. This is definitely a tactic, and I'm not very happy that you've let them get away with this [yet another request for more time]. Tell them 'No', Britton."
Here's Kramer's letter, where he threatens Rule 11 and says I have no evidence to support my claim, that I'm obsessed with Google, and that we should dismiss the case.
Keep in mind, their previous attorney who was based in Pittsburgh (who Britt, my attorney, referred to as the "low man on the totem pole") seemed to believe my claims. We were very cordial and provided them with several months of extra time because they said they were "busy" or whatever.
This is where the reason of the law breaks down. How can you investigate if you're not permitted to unless you have investigated?
My friend and colleague, Dr. Vasco Pedro, who recently got his doctorate, owns and operates Bueda.com, a semantic-matching advertising platform. We connected on the fact that we had both talked to Sergey Brin once. Here's his testimony:
Dr. Pedro's corroboration * - note: the first 20 seconds are silent, so be patient...
Here's the letter my attorney sent Mr. Kramer.
Herb, If you have any questions about No Lie MRI, call. Joel Huizenga, CEO, No Lie MRI, California (858) 459-1211
The above line is from an email received 4/22/2010 - we tried this as a creative solution:
David H. Kramer
Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Re: Herbert Elwood Gilliland III vs. Chad Hurley and Steve Chen; Case No. 2:09-cv-01621-RCM
Dear Mr. Kramer:
In your letter of April 13, 2010 you make clear your opinion that my client is delusional and that the conversations and agreement on which he is suing your clients never occurred. In other words, you have suggested that your clients are truthful and mine is untruthful. Neither your opinions nor mine are of any value because we were not involved in the conception and founding of YouTube. Only Mssrs. Gilliland, Chen and Hurley know the truth about what really happened at the inception of the YouTube venture.
To test your assertion of what really happened (as well as mine on behalf of my client) I have a proposition. I propose that your clients and mine agree to undergo deception testing using the latest technology available, which relies on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with advanced brain mapping software utilizing specialized algorithms. The premier company offering this service, No Lie MRI, Inc, is located in San Diego. In the alternative, if you prefer, my client will agree to undergo a traditional polygraph examination along with Mr. Hurley and Mr. Chen. Regardless of the testing method used, both sides may submit a preset number of questions to the other side using a mutually agreeable neutral to ensure that the testing conditions and questions follow normal protocol. The results will be available to both sides after all three examinations are completed.
So, while we were preparing for the depositions to take place on May 6, 2010, Kramer was building up his legal blockade. I have to explain some things that were happening between April 4 and April 23. My attorney wanted to see whatever videos I had on YouTube. I attempted to use "private sharing" (a special hash-code is used to display the videos only to those with the unique hashed URL). My attorney, Mr. Monts, called and requested these hashed videos. I sent him the hashes. Keep in mind, YouTube was a buggy mess because they were rolling out their new design that few like.
We receive our responses to the written questions. This is our first pass to see what information we can pick from Chad and Steve about the foundation myth. The questions deal primarily with their personal cellphone and office numbers, so we can proceed with subpoenas once we enter the phase where they can be issued. We never got a chance to enter that phase because of the Rule 11 threat from Google's attorney.
Attorney Monts, my lead counsel, imagined David Kramer telling them each to answer like 1 question each (the minimum requirement), and then objecting systematically to every single question after that. Read the documents yourself by clicking the links at the bottom of this post.
What did my legal team take away from this?
1) Steve Chen admits there is a valid range for discovery regarding telephone conversations.
2) Chad says he wasn't at PayPal after "early 2003", so he couldn't possibly have been there in 2004 when I allegedly called with the YouTube idea. Later, as the case is dismissed without prejudice, Chad asserts in a sworn declaration that he had no contact with the company in any form after the sale to eBay in early 2003. Anyone who has read about YouTube's founding knows that this could not be true. See the NPC post titled "Chad Hurley's Perjury" for more specifics.
What we sent them:
We sent almost the exact same questions to Chad.
What they sent us: