I believe I have warned Zuckerberg before,

he kept on with the abuse over the relays.

 

Whichever way, I certainly will not be

working with a controlling character like this.

 

You stated conditions over my allegations.

Whether to invest or not before.

 

Then that's it. I have a choice not to engage further.

Not going to live a life being judged by this idiot.

And keep reminding me as so-called 'prank'.

It was simply abuse.

 

When someone asks to stop. You simply stop.

It was always about control for this guy.

So it is now as well.

 

The fact that he's shameless enough to try

and turn the table around on me,

if he is suing me as Hector indicates on the Ferrari relay,

 

then I am suing him for pursuit of control, therefore abuse.

Under unreasonable excuses despite his previous actions,

and certainly no agreement, no contract signed.

 

And I had no way knowing if they could have helped while

the defamation went on. I am under the belief, they

simply let it go on. Something to laugh at.

But I was/am blind, and I mentioned this before so

I won't accuse of this.

 

But under those circumstances, priorities were

that my abuse from Anna and the others,

the cyberbullying. That must first be gone,

and I, brought into the channel, in clear view,

for proper communication and observation of my rights

and contracts.

 

Yet, they chose not to bring me into the channel,

I believe I was kept blind, while this defamation by video

was still rampant.

 

If I was kept blind in purpose, to deliberately keep

me from defending myself. That is also an issue.

But I myself have no way of knowing,

and I do not know if there is evidence to it,

nor is there witnesses who may or may not remember.

I hope someone finds a way into this.

 

Among many breaches of trust, for a proper business agreement

to have proceeded in good terms, open communication

must have been present, and it is up to the investor

to keep up with the trust.

 

To summarize,

 

It is 100% my idea. (1)

 

Made from a different country of residence. (2)

 

They certainly did not send me the link to the channel.

For whatever reasons. And therefore, I am not even sure

what exactly was the terms of agreement in detail. (3)

 

Nor do I know if they both exploited the environment

I was being harassed. If they didn't do anything to remove harmful

content, that would be exploiting the environment. (4)

 

There was no tangible contract, written contract,

specified for this sent to me. therefore, nor was it signed. (5)

 

Investor decidely made an issue about the allegations

in relation to the investment. And further taunted,

pranked, even after the allegations were over.

(So he made his preference, and abuse followed)

(At this point I have the right to avoid this person as well)

 

(6)

 

This was decided for over a year. That I parted my ways

from the investor, and moved on with Mr Bezos.

 

Until now, which was only after my idea of using

generative A.I to use with the website recently,

 

he suddenly turned. Recognizing the potential of the project.

 

He was silent until now. Agreeable.

 

(7)

 

 

I absolutely have the right to auction my own ideas,

should I find the investor unworthy of trust,

for my well-being, and certainly when there are

no observant contract, or signed contract that was in agreement.

 

(8)

 

Certainly, even now, I don't know this person.

I've never met him.

 

All this, it is only based on TRUST.

 

Once that trust is destroyed, because of the investor himself,

then that's it. I have no reason or obligation to connect.

It becomes my choice.

 

(9)

 

 

This is a simple attempt at harm.

 

This is about control.

 

If this is really happening, Zuckerberg needs to be charged for pursuit of control,

therefore abuse.

 

And what needs to be investigated is the origins of all this.

 

I remember Adam relaying a message through his upvote,

that someone powerful was appearing on the stage,

I did not know who this was then.

 

If you can identify the time of that upvote,

and connect it with the time when the authorities have first appeared on the channel,

along with when or when not the harmful videos on me were present there then or not,

 

you would know their intent.

 

(10)

 

--------------

 

Even if, those videos were removed then. (1)

Authorities were already present by the time Zuckerberg appeared (2)

 

I simply should have been given the channel link,

and should have been in open communication instead asking me to trust them singular-way. (3)

 

It was unfair for me certainly,

 

Exactly what am I trusting?

 

They have always had the 'upperhand' in everything.

 

To fully control. Whether they affected the environment or not, it was in their control, and it wasn't to me. (4)

 

it was nothing short of digitized control, something resembling a slavery system. (5)