Petition for reinstating the account going by the name of Yankee Wally -

Please enable JavaScript to view the full PDF

Petition for reinstating the account going by the name of Yankee Wally. Dear YouTube Legal team. We hereby implore you to reinstate above account and to see to that it will be put in good standing on the following grounds: Yankee Wally is a monarchist. She is an elderly homebound woman that is good natured and has very limited to no resources of defending herself from the social media attacks that have been launched against her personally, the defamation, the threats and the mass reporting of coordinated paid people and so called “bot farms” that have mass reported her account on baseless grounds. We acknowledge that YouTube as a private entity and not a governmental agency does have the right to ignore internationally free speech as it is articulated in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers: As this rule is not respected by many social media platforms the question has been raised by the UN human rights group (see attachment 1). Limiting free speech, even when not malicious or hate speech leads to censorship. YouTube is still legally a “host” and not a publisher, hence there is no need for Orwellian actions against a British pensioner whose only crime is to enjoy royal gossip, loves her queen and disapproves with how her majesty is being treated by her grandson and his wife. She is intitled to that opinion. Those opinions are based on her observation of their actions and are unrelated to sexual orientation, race or other protected subjects. To speak one’s opinion about public figures that represent one’s country, and that she has also paid taxes for her whole life is her democratic right. She lives in the western world where freedom of opinion and speech is a fundamental foundation for our democracy. According to YouTubes own guidelines, YouTube should have raised the question with her if any problematic content had been found or reported. It is our understanding that it takes three strikes or something out of the ordinary to be suspended, and permanently. We want to bring the following to YouTubes attention as this is happening to many accounts of both private citizens and journalists: Some people in power have found services that silence dissidents and censor unfavorable opinions by using dubious methods, in this case Prince Harry and his Wife, but there are many other people and examples. We will however focus on Wally’s case. In Wally’s case, she was targeted by something that is called the Megalators, or Sussex Squad (see attachment 2 for context) as soon as she voiced disapproval of the couples’ actions. She has been subjected to threats, defamation and hacking of her bank account (as is the modus operandi for this group). When Wally did not shut her channel down, other measures were taken. A man by the name of Christopher Ellis Bouzy, Bot Sentinel, was employed to harass her by his twitter account all while mass reporting her account by renting “bot farms”and imploring individuals of the so-called Sussex Squad to do the same albeit manually. Bouzy put her channel on a “hitlist” (with many others) that he published on his twitter account (see attachment 3), the hitlist is a list of accounts that he wants to be taken down even though they do not concern him personally. Some of his tweets regarding this elderly pensioner is found in attachment 4). His reaction after having taken her account down is in attachment 5. He is as we speak in court for doing the same thing to former Hollywood filmmaker, documentary Filmer and journalist Jason Goodman. He is also targeting British royal correspondent Angela Levin. The list is long. So this is not the only account that he is doing this to. YouTube needs to understand the context behind these actions. I hereby quote the filing of journalist Jason Goodman vs. Christopher Ellis Bouzy for context and the character of Christopher Ellis Bouzy: “Case 1:21-cv-10878-UA, Document, Filed 12/19/21 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. JASON GOODMAN. Plaintiff, vs. CHRISTOPHER ELLIS Bouzy, BOT SENTIEL, INC and GEORGE WEBB SWEIGERT. Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR CONSPIRACY TO DEFAME. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. Jason Goodman (“Goodman”) alleges as follows, upon actual knowledge with respect to himself and his own acts, and upon information and belief as to all other matters. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This civil action is for defamation, libel, tortious interference, and conspiracy to defame under federal, state, and/or common law. 2. Defendants deliberately and repeatedly published statements they knew to be false with the sole intent of harming Plaintiff. 3. Defendants’ statements were published to third parties, publicly posted on Twitter and elsewhere and widely publicized with the sole intent of damaging Plaintiff. 4. Defendants conspired to damage Plaintiff’s business and reputation and to publish false accusations of heinous crimes that rise to the level of defamation per se. PARTIES. 5. Plaintiff – Pro se Plaintiff Jason Goodman is a New York citizen, CEO of Multimedia System Design, Inc, MSD. Goodman is a documentary filmmaker, a journalist and is the creator of the social media property Crowdsource the Truth. 6. Defendant – Christopher Ellis Bouzy is a New Jersey citizen and CEO of Bot Sentinel, Inc an artificial intelligence technology company that is closely integrated with Twitter. 7. Defendant – Bot Sentinel, Inc (“Bot Sentinel”) is a U.S. Corporation that claims to be an online platform developed to detect and track trollbots and untrustworthy Twitter accounts using artificial intelligence and machine learning among other things. 8. Defendant – George Webb Sweigert (“Webb”) is a Georgia citizen and a journalist. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. 9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Federal and New York State tort law. 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, and venue is proper in the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) and because the Plaintiff is being harmed in this District; Defendant is conducting business in this District; and Defendant is violating the Plaintiff’s rights in this District. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Defendant Christopher Bouzy (“Bouzy”) is the founder and CEO of Bot Sentinel. Botsentinel.com describes the following “In 2018, Christopher Bouzy (@cbouzy) launched Bot Sentinel to help fight disinformation and targeted harassment. We believe Twitter users should be able to engage in healthy online discourse without inauthentic accounts, toxic trolls, foreign countries, and organized groups manipulating the conversation.” Bot Sentinel purports to be a benevolent site that is free to use and is financially supported by donations from magnanimous users. In fact, there is no artificial intelligence or machine learning behind Bot Sentinel. It is merely a façade. Bot Sentinel is a money raising scam intended to build Bouzy’s credibility while it hides his true purpose to defame and attack users on Twitter he or his clients dislike. Bouzy uses the techniques he claims to monitor on Twitter to attack individuals and launch vicious personally damaging harassment, defamation, and reputation destruction campaigns. Bot Sentinel and Bouzy are engaged in a harassment for hire business model, and they serve clients who call on them to do so. In or around December 2020, an individual named Benjamin Wittes (“Wittes”) agreed to engage in a text-based interview with the Plaintiff over Twitter. These exchanges are commonly referred to as “Ask Me Anything” or simply AMA sessions. Although Wittes agreed to participate voluntarily, he avoided answering uncomfortable questions and prematurely terminated the session when the Plaintiff raised evidence pertaining to a story that had been previously covered on Wittes podcast and blog titled Lawfare. Wittes departure from the online conversation was directly coincident with unwanted and insulting Twitter communications from Defendant Bouzy. Prior to this interaction, the Plaintiff had never met Bouzy and was totally unaware of him. Bouzy’s messages were filled with false claims so offensive and insulting, they prompted Plaintiff to search the internet for Bouzy’s phone number. After a lengthy phone call, Bouzy began a day’s long Twitter defamation campaign against Plaintiff that included false, baseless, and unsubstantiated claims made by Bouzy alleging that Plaintiff had committed the crime of rape. These heinous allegations are inherently damaging, false and were clearly made with the sole intention of injuring Plaintiff’s reputation and business. Not satisfied with mere reputation destruction, Bouzy took further steps to destroy the social media accounts that he knew were critical to Plaintiff’s daily business operations. Despite these horrendous actions, and due to Plaintiff demanding schedule, Plaintiff decided to ignore Bouzy and put the harassment, defamation, and tortious interference out of mind. Almost one year later, with no further provocation from Plaintiff, on December 17, 2021, Bouzy republished the same series of defamatory tweets. While New York case law precedent has determined that mere republication of old claims is insufficient to extend the statute of limitations, Bouzy’s most recent originally published defamatory statement was made on December 20, 2020 making this filing timely today. DEFENDANTS AND THEIR WRONGFUL ACTS 11. On or around December 2020, Defendant Bouzy published a series of defamatory and libelous statements solely intended to harm Plaintiff. 12. On December 20, 2021, Bouzy published a tweet via his @cbouzy twitter account which stated “Jason Goodman, the man who falsely accused Wittes of being part of a murder cover up, and called my cell after finding my number on the internet, sent me a cease and desist in DM. Jason doesn't want me tweeting that he threatened me not to tweet about his rape allegations...” (EXHIBIT A) 13. During a private phone call just prior to the Twitter attack, Bouzy arbitrarily suggested he could find a person online who had accused the Plaintiff of rape, even though no person has ever made such an accusation aside from false statements made without evidence by Webb. 14. On or around May 2018, Webb published a video on YouTube that has since been deleted. In the video, Webb made the false allegation that the Plaintiff had raped then underage Somali fashion model Halima Aden (“Aden”) 15. Aden has since become world famous. She has become a fashion icon and a role model to young Muslim women around the world as the first supermodel to wear a hijab in the pages of Sports Illustrated and other major publications. 16. Webb’s claims were baseless, false, unsubstantiated, and ridiculous on their face. Plaintiff has never raped any person or engaged in any violent crime. Plaintiff has never met Aden. Plaintiff has never been romantically linked to a supermodel. 17. The allegations made by Plaintiff against Wittes are based in fact, supported by evidence and have not been denied by anyone. Despite Defendant’s definitive claim, Plaintiff’s allegations have not been proven false. Plaintiff is a documentary filmmaker and journalist whose reputation for truthfulness is inherently valuable. 18. On or around December 17, 2021, coincident with a filing by Webb in Sweigert v CNN (See Case 2:20-cv-12933-GAD-KGA ECF No. 35) Bouzy republished his 2020 defamatory statements intended to injure Plaintiff. 19. Plaintiff has submitted an Amicus Curiae brief in Sweigert v CNN that alleges criminal activity on the part of Webb and others. (See Case 2:20-cv-12933-GADKGA ECF No. 20) 20. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Webb engaged Bouzy to harass and defame Plaintiff in retaliation for the Amicus filing and to deliberately harm Plaintiff. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. 21. Defendant Bouzy made a false statement of fact with the deliberate intent of harming Plaintiff. The statement amounts to per se libel because it accuses Plaintiff of a heinous crime and is inherently understood to damage his reputation and standing as a member of society. 22. Defendant Bouzy published his false statement to third parties on December 20, 2020, making this pleading timely. 23. Third party responses on Twitter indicate that many members of the public believed the defamatory statement and it generated public hatred toward Plaintiff. 24. Defendant Bouzy admitted he used these false statements as part of an effort to destroy YouTube, Facebook and other social media accounts owned by Plaintiff. 25. Defendant Bouzy did this because he knew Plaintiff relied on for these social media accounts for the operation of his business and to earn income. 26. Defendant Bouzy coordinated and conspired directly with Defendant Webb, utilizing false and defamatory information originally published by Webb. Bouzy made no reference to the original publication but made his own new publication of unqualified false statements of fact. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION. Defamation. 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs as if fully stated herein. 28. Defendants made false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiff. 29. At the time the Defendants made these statements, the Defendants knew the statements to be false and defamatory. 30. At the time the Defendants made these statements, the Defendants knew the statements to be false and defamatory. 31. At the time the Defendants made these statement, the Defendant knew the statements to be false and defamatory. 32. Defendants made these false and defamatory statements solely out of malice, to malign and injure the Plaintiff 33. These statements were made to others and for public consumption on the social media microblogging platform Twitter. 34. Members of the public including thousands of Defendants’ Twitter followers and dozens of commenters saw, read and acknowledged or responded to Defendants’ false and defamatory statements. 35. As a direct result of these malicious false statements, Plaintiff suffered harm to his reputation, career opportunities and income in an amount to be determined at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court will enter judgement in his favor for the following relief: 1. Declaring that the Defendants statements were libelous and defamatory. 2. For money damages for all economic losses including, but not limited to, lost, past and future earnings; and for compensatory damages; and for punitive damages; and for interest at the maximum legal rate on all sums awarded; and for such other and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Signed this 13th day of December 2021. Respectfully submitted, Jason Goodman, Plaintiff” I attach his tweets about Angela Levin, Royal Correspondent in Britain (attachment 6). I will also provide a brief history of Christopher Ellis Bouzy’s history before becoming a virtual silencer of unfavorable comments or discussions of his clients. Everything below is alleged because as far as we are aware of, he has not been convicted in a court of law. We do not either know that he has not. There are however countless witnesses/victims to the said below: Christopher Bouzy is not new in the game of standing somewhere between the truth and deceit. Between 2009 up until 2018, when he created Bot Sentinel, he was accused of scamming people of their Bitcoin, USD, The Blackcoin card and other crypto currencies of thousands of people. There are, if I understand this correctly, several separate cryptocurrency and money scams he has been accused of as having masterminded and/or has been involved in and his name is on all watchdog lists and the complaints are too many to count. On reputable Bitcoin/Crypto forums he was known as and I quote “well known crypto scammer called” Iconic Expert””. There are innumerable warnings about him within the community of cryptocurrency. He has also been acting as a financial adviser going by various names as Barabbas and” Iconic Expert”, who has allegedly gone off with his victim’s money. He was allegedly a part of the liberty coin scam, then came the” blackcoin” scam in which he allegedly never returned peoples dollars or bitcoins but kept them, which is theft. Then we have the Bytecent. The list goes on. If YouTube needs further explanations, material or evidence we will be happy to provide that. Today – The Bot Scam, targeting accounts under the guise of being hate accounts and the Sussexes Cristopher Bouzy has an unverified bot system, not endorsed or verified by Twitter even though he claims it is, made for Twitter, and he claims to be hunting bots there that target high profile people. It is not, it is instead an Elizabeth Holmes like scam but with imaginary bots instead of people’s blood samples. Bot sentinel is not only a scam but is in direct violation of the United Nations Internationally protected speech. Not to mention a violation of the American first amendment and all other legally free speech in the western world. YouTube is condoning these actions by allowing this to take place and censor free speech on behalf of people with money or power. He is now, (for legal reasons, allegedly) accepting money and donations from the Sussex camp, which he, allegedly, is using to target any bad press, opinions by private citizens, silence dislike from the people of Britain that are still funding his and his wife’s titles and privilege. Prince Harry is also still a representative of Britain as he refuses to rescind his titles. So is his wife. As a taxpayer, Yankee Wally has the human right to criticize public people that represent her country and that is what she did. Why YouTube suspended her for life for that is Orwellian or as this is regarding royalty, Machiavellian. Prince Harry and The Duchess of Sussex have been involved in his endeavors and have even mentioned this known, alleged, super scammer, in public interviews as his he was a credible source of information. His “Bot tracker” that is chasing “single purpose hate accounts” is not working. He cannot explain how it works, the algorithms that it is run on and so on are well… special. All of his allegations about coordinated attacks by people and bots on The Duchess of Sussex and Prince Harry was refuted and contradicted by Twitter itself They even made a statement: Quote: “In an Oct. 27 2021 statement to the Washington Post, Twitter said they were “actively investigating” and would take action on any account violating Twitter rules but saw no evidence of “widespread coordination, the use of multiple accounts by single people, or other platform manipulation tactics.” End Quote. Other platform manipulation tactics means bots and the like. Now he is using the so-called bot tracker to in reality stalk twhat accounts journalists, a protected profession, interact with and if they report anything that can damage the image of his clients. Journalists are the people who guard free. Jason Goodman and Angela Levin are not alone. Adding to that; this targeting and censorship for hire against civilians should not be a part of YouTubes business model. It is censorship that has taken us since WW2 to abolish from the western realms. We hereby ask YouTube to review Yankee Wally’s case again in the light of the above information. If any actions or material that goes against YouTubes guidelines and Wally has not been aware of (she did not get any warnings or strikes) Wally is more than willing to reform to comply with all and any YouTube regulations. As a homebound elderly citizen, she has been very reliant on YouTube for community and a social life. I will end by quoting part of a UN statement regarding social media platforms and companies risking censoring free speech. “New laws a cause for concern In recent months, the world has seen growing criticism levelled against social media companies regarding how they moderate user content. These companies often face critical human rights dilemmas: aggressively combating what is viewed as harmful content risks silencing ‘protected speech’: speech that, under international law, should be permitted. Intervening with or removing content affects the rights to freedom of expression and privacy, and can easily lead to censorship.” In hope that this matter can be resolved. Best Regards Gina Walters Lawyer, Human rights Sweden