December 8, 2010
1. When the case started, Google set forth defenses (all available for free online at  Google claimed that "PRIVATE ROAD NO TRESPASSING" signage is not enough to stop the Google drivers.  

Google said Americans need fences, gates and guard dogs to stop Google.  Google claimed it was like someone merely turning around, entry by the police, and pizza delivery person.  Google claimed that there is no privacy in backyards, because people in airplanes can see into backyards.  Google claimed that satellite photography is the equivalent of being physically on my doorstep.  That may sound crazy to you, but it is all true.  See the bottom of the page at

Google says to trust it in media spins, but buries these arguments in court papers that the public is too busy to read carefully.  It is now all online for you to read at

Now that Google has now conceded liability and admitted that it intentionally trespassed, we blew those absurd defenses out of the water for the next person. 

Google tried those defenses and they ultimately failed.  But, understand that the defenses failed because the Borings refused to give up and stayed in the game.  Google expected that the Borings would give up, but they did not.  Post-reinstatement by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Google was now at a point where it would have had to "stick to its story" and tell a jury.  Google's defenses would have infuriated a jury.  Google knew it, and that is why Google conceded.  Now, Google cannot now claim that its policies are sufficient.  As an intentional trespasser, it must improve.  The next injured person can ask Google, now a confirmed intentional trespasser, how Google improved its policies to prevent being a repeat offender.

2. To persuade casual listeners, Google spins its "intentional trespasser" concession into a statement that the $1 is a reflection of social value or importance. That is simply not true. 

One dollar is the symbolic legal "nominal" damage when actual compensatory damages do not exist or are not claimed.  For example, prior to the congressional Civil Rights Act legislation that grants penalties, damages, costs and fees, a person racially discriminated against might only have $1 nominal damages, or $1.50 compensation damages for a refund of a bus ticket.  If that sounds wrong to you, that is the point.

Google trespasses and then claims there is no compensatory damages, just like the bus company could do before Congressional Civil Rights Legislation.

Nominal damages exist exactly to allow cases to proceed to vindicate a legal right even if money is not the issue.  Nominal damages are non-judgmental, they are formalistic.  This is exactly why we absolutely need federal congressional legislation in this area, such as in other countries.  Google got its free bite, and the Borings bear the litigation scar.  That is okay.  Now, it is absolutely clear that Congress must statutorily grant penalties, attorneys fees and costs to someone trespassed upon, since the courts do not have the power to do so.  We worked hard and did a lot of good for the next mom and pop, but the next mom and pop should be able to claim a violation of a statute, and get penalties, statutory damages, attorneys fees and costs. 

Google has increased its congressional lobby budget 11% this year to prevent this from happening.

3. Remember that Google claims the answer to its injuries is to merely go onto its website and remove the property reference. 

First, our law firm has received a number of calls regarding off-today, back on-tomorrow.  Second, Google's website does not solve the problem for senior citizens and people who do not know how to use a computer.  Google injures you, or makes you curious about whether you are injured, so that you have to go onto its website, at which time it can advertise to you and collect information about you.  Google has the money, but forces us to cleanse its database with our time and equipment. 

Google is smart, Google does not really want its database cleansed.  Indeed, Google does not provide opt-ins, advance community notices, television or radio advertisements about how to take your property off, or even toll-free numbers with agents ready to help.  Google could spread around their money and help the economy with advertising and services, but it does not do so because it wants its database filled.  This is another reason why there must be federal congressional legislation in this area, such as in other countries.  Google is spending money buying politician favor and lobbying against consumer legislation, when it should be spending money on internal controls, privacy and property rights, and ensuring people are informed about how to get out of the service it imposes upon us without our knowledge. 

4. We have not yet received payment.  We expect that we will.