PLEASUREBUSINESSVODAVN AWARDS 2014

Located in: Home > Business > Legal News > Lawyer Sues Apple for Not Blocking Porn

Lawyer Sues Apple for Not Blocking Porn

But his case may be doomed from the get-go.

Lawyer Sues Apple for Not Blocking Porn

NASHVILLE, TN—A Nashville lawyer is trying to sue Apple because it does not filter porn from all of its devices, and he typed in a wrong domain name and mistakenly went to a porn site. We stress "trying" because the lawyer/plaintiff, Chris Sevier, is having trouble coming up with the court filing fee, and in fact filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (i.e. he’s broke and can’t afford the filing fee) on June 19, the same day he filed his 50-page complaint.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sevier, 36, a reportedly non-practicing attorney who is also a part-time model (with a Model Mayhem page, that has him aged 26) as well as a music producer, was also in the news late last month when he got pinched for digitally stalking country music star John Rich, with whom he apparently has a long-running feud. In fact, he was arrested June 23, only four days after he filed his Apple lawsuit, which JDJournal.com called “weird, wild, and unwieldy.”

It is that and more. “The Plaintiff,” reads the complaint, “is a victim of Apple’s product that was sold to him without any warning of the damage the pornography causes. ‘But for’ the Plaintiff’s use of the Apple product, the quality of the Plaintiff’s life would have been much better and injury would have been avoided. The Plaintiff sustained these unwarranted damages in the course of using Apple’s product as designed. Apple’s product was not adequately equipped with safety features that would have otherwise blocked unwarranted intrusions of pornographic content that systematically poisoned his life.”

It goes on like that for 50 pages. Read to your heart’s content here.

Meanwhile, Sevier will have his lawsuit dismissed if he doesn’t figure something out about the filing fee. On July 1, the presiding judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Todd J. Campbell, issued an Order regarding the in Forma Pauperis motion that has effectively stalled the case. We reprint it here in its virtual entirety:

The plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. However, the court is unable to rule on the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis at this time. The plaintiff states that he received income from disability payments over the past twelve months in the amount of $2700 per month but the plaintiff does not expect to receive disability payments over the next twelve months. If the plaintiff has no source of projected income, as is indicated by his pauper application, the plaintiff does not explain how he is making financial ends meet given that he states that his monthly expenses for food and transportation total $1500 per month. Further, the plaintiff states that he has $600 in a checking account, which is more than enough to pay the civil filing fee in this case.

The plaintiff is directed to file with the court, within ten (10) days of the entry of this order, a signed statement setting forth with specificity (as detailed as possible) the sources and amounts of any and all income, benefits, or assets he expects to use to support himself for the next twelve (12) months, including, but not limited to: regular wages, disability benefits, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments, food stamps, worker’s compensation, unemployment compensation, real and personal property, assistance from family or friends, etc. The court needs this information so that the court can assess whether the plaintiff is entitled to pursue his lawsuit against Apple, Inc. without having to incur the costs associated with filing and prosecuting a federal lawsuit.

The plaintiff is forewarned that failure to provide the required information within the time frame specified will result in the denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Because this action cannot proceed until either (1) the plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, or (2) he pays the civil filing fee, should the plaintiff fail to submit the requested information or to pay the filing fee within the time frame specified, any limitations period applicable to this action will no longer be tolled, and the plaintiff’s lawsuit could be dismissed.

It gets worse. The court docket also contains two instances of mail sent to Sevier’s Nashville address being returned to the court as undeliverable due to “insufficient address.” But the clock started ticking for Sevier on July 1, after which he had ten days in which to file the requested signed statement with Judge Campbell or risk having the case thrown. Maybe he’s on vacation, which may be best considering he somehow has to explain to the judge how he was able to make bail on the 25th to the tune of $4,000 when he filed the pauper motion with the court only four days earlier, on July 19, stating he was broke.






Related Content:

Ann Oui

Comments

 /
Please log in to comment.
Don't have a free account? Become a member!


By participating you agree to our Privacy Policy & the AVN "Be Kind Policy"
and represent that you are not under the age of 18.

Related Topics







AVN.com