They will argue they sent you an email, which is accepted as sufficient notice by the court

negative

@Marushia Dark which is stupid

emails are almost ALWAYS inadmissible

certified mail trumps email EVERY TIME

If they had a receipt system that'd be different

Dafuq courts have you been in, MA that all this ridiculous procedure is taking place? <:thunk:462282216467333140>

"We tried, so you knew" is bullshit, regardless of what the law states

The slow redpilling of PewDiePie is speeding up
https://youtu.be/F5QWUOAcg_Q

if i make up my own contract which is a derivative of theirs, send it by registered mail and hold onto it

in court, they get FUCKED

Registered mail is good evidence, but not the only form of evidence

Here's a dirty little secret about the courts ....

the mail ALWAYS beats any electronic medium because the US postal service is deemed to be good enough for the tranmission to be authenticated

"The thumb of one race." -PewDiePie, 11/2019

email can EASILY be spoofed

@Marushia Dark theyre boomers

hell, i could even write an email to myself that google would think came from Youtube

and google would see it as authentic

**THE THUMB OF ONE RACE**

can't easily do that with the US postal service

Pewds is slow boiling the nine year olds, he's already pilled

Oh how turns the tables

The judge is legally only allowed to rely on two things: his knowledge of the law itself, and whatever evidence the two parties put before him. He's not supposed to rely on personal discretion unless it's something so patently obvious like "the sun rises in the east."

So if one party says "Stalin did nothing wrong" and the other side doesn't rebut it, guess which way the judge rules? "A presumption will stand good until the contrary is proven." Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. So you need to override the YT lawyer's claim TO THE JUDGE that email is not sufficient because ___.

but you see my point, right?

using that exact standard, either side could provide perfectly acceptable evidence

just by spoofing the email header

or altering the electronic agreement

The court recognizes degrees of evidence. Having the post office back it is solid, but much like a wet ink signature, is not the only form of acceptable evidence. Again, the courts tend to operate on a "good enough" rule. Maybe you've heard the expression: good enough for government?

lol; many times. again, we are in agreement within this regard

https://youtu.be/6MNavkSGntQ

What is nig noggin wrong with links lately

you'd have to prove the electronic document was tampered. Goes to what I said before about fraud. The judges often don't read into the details of documents put before them unless they have to (cuz who would want to?). If you hand him a copy of the IRS tax code, he'll just be like, "Yep, sounds good to me" and then it's on you to prove deficiency in the document.

https://img-9gag-fun.9cache.com/photo/aBg2wVD_460swp.webp

that standard coupled with the fact that it would be vituallly impossible to prove an email was spoofed means it is just a matter of who is more AFRAID of the courts

the corporate goons ARE NOT

I think another relevant point here is that when it comes to rulings on corporations vs citizens, US courts tend to find favor heavily with the corporations. So in a legal grey area like this its safe to assume they would rule against the individual

robosigning anyone?

People trust Google to at least know how to secure an email

exactly. i know that from first hand experience

fraud is almost IMPOSSIBLE to prove