I'm a little mystified as to why you haven't engaged outside counsel or hired a legal officer. Although I think you have some strong arguments, there's an awful lot of avoidable-seeming 'who said what' questions that ultimately boil down to whether the jury finds you or the state's witnesses more credible. Winning on the facts is no guarantee of winning on the questions of law, and the appeals process is going to be lengthy no matter which side you find yourself on.
Pro se litigants that bring test cases on constitutional matters are laboring at a considerable disadvantage. Litigating your own case does not seem like the best use of your energies. Although I can relate to both your pedantry and one-man-band approach on a personal level, I am perplexed by your (apparent) hostility to gathering outside financing or simply taking the same approach as your competitors, none of whom seem to be anticipating criminal charges.
I'm sympathetic to the claims presented but how can Think file suit pro se? Corporation are considered separate persons and therefore cannot be represented pro se as has been held in numerous cases (e.g. Brandstein v. White Lamps). While there are limited exceptions for administrative claims, this suit is not being filed as a continuation of the process but rather for damages created by flaws in it.
It seems that the two options are to find counsel willing to represent Think pro bono or for Aaron to re-craft this as a personal claim.
Note that I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal advice.
Is it possible to file suit, and then in the future retain legal counsel for representation? (i.e. is it possible Aaron has simply yet to hire a lawyer?)
Question---rather than inundating the DFI with complaints yourself, would it make sense to inform their competitors of violations, and let them do it? I can see the DFI ignoring violation allegations from you, but I notice both Verizon & Airbnb are on the list---perhaps notes to AT&T and some hotel lobby might be effective?
You can demand the sun, moon and stars if you feel like it. The judge instructs the jury on what grounds they can award damages, and those grounds may or may not impose a limit - sometimes you get 'economic' damages that represent quantifiable loss, sometimes you also get 'punitive' damages that are designed to send a warning to other potential defendants. Sometimes the case is dismissed and you get nothing. If damages are awarded, there are usually procedural arguments over their size at appeal.
In some respects, asking for $25 million can be seen as an assertion that the litigant intends to a) get the defendant's full attention and b) be very stubborn, causing the defendant to run up a hefty legal bill, if nothing else. Not a lawyer, just a law student with an interest in the economics of litigation.
Pro se litigants that bring test cases on constitutional matters are laboring at a considerable disadvantage. Litigating your own case does not seem like the best use of your energies. Although I can relate to both your pedantry and one-man-band approach on a personal level, I am perplexed by your (apparent) hostility to gathering outside financing or simply taking the same approach as your competitors, none of whom seem to be anticipating criminal charges.