- Report: #1295084
Complaint Review: Leagle.com - Internet
-
Author Not Confirmed
Why?
Leagle.com
Internet, USA
Web:
http://www.leagle.com/
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Leagle.com Donald Johnson Leagle.com refuses to filter damaging legal data Internet
This is the first thing that comes up when you search my name.
This could damage my ability to get a job or even a place to live.
I do not want this information readily available to anyone who happens to Google my name. And, in fact, it comes up as the first item on any google for my name. Please tell me what action I can take to prevent my information from being so easily accessible on the internet. How can I make it not longer searchable to the general public via the internet.
XXX v. XXX UNIV. | Leagle.com
When this information appears in a credit report, it can cause denial of
a mortgage or a rental agreement and can adversely affect my ability
to get a job. But at least it drops from a credit report after a period of
years. Now it seems to be available indefinitely on the internet to anyone,
including those not doing legal research. I have contacted Leagle.com,
and Mr. Johnson refuses to alter his database in anyway to prevent
this item from appearing in a Google search. And it shows up as the
very first entry. I have tried "pushing it down" by adding new posts
online, but it continues to come up as the first result no matter how
much positive material I post to replace it.
After Mr. Johnson said he would be unwilling to the robotix filter so that the entry would not appear (and entries from sources like Lexis do not appear because Lexis uses the filter), I sent him the following email:
Dear Leagle.com,
I understand you will not remove the following entry.
XXX v. XXX UNIV. | Leagle.com
On May 9, 2008, XXX's grievance committee determined that "Although XXX XXX was definitely informed that she was not being allowed to continue in ...
You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 3/20/16
However, you have chosen to make visible an excerpt buried well in the middle
of the facts portion of the case. In fact, it is the fifth paragraph of the document; the fourth paragraph listed under facts.
Other cases listed on your website do not seem to extract an obscure paragraph buried deep within the document to list on internet searches. For example, Jones v State reads as follows on an internet (Google) search:
JONES v. STATE | Leagle.com
Petition of Harold Jones for Certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that Court in Jones v. State, 56 Ala.
The information listed on the Google search, "Petition of Harold Jones ..." is indeed the very first paragraph of the document of the text available on your website.
Or take the example of
STATE v. CASTON | Leagle.com
STATE of Louisiana, Appellee, v. Frank James CASTON, Appellant. LINDSAY, Judge. The defendant, Frank James Caston, was convicted of first degree murder ...
The information extracted to appear on an internet search is, again, text from the very first paragraph of the document as it appears on your site.
And yet, for some strange reason that I would very like you to explain, you have chosen to make the fifth paragraph -- listed under facts -- to be the text that appears on any random internet search. This paragraph does not contain the main argument of the case. Why have you chosen this paragraph? And can you not included in search the text from the first paragraph of the document as you seem to do in many of your other internet searches? "
Mr. Johnson has never responded but the damaging information remains unchanged -- and readily accessible on the internet.
I was threatened by the university with being blacklisted. I suspect the legal team at the university have paid Mr. Johnson to publish this damaging information as part of their threat to have me blacklisted.
