Below is an English heading and short framing text in benim tabirimle, COVID bağlamını ve arka uç şüphesini öne çıkararak yazdım.

---

Suspected Backend Manipulation of a Family‑Owned Fuel Station During the COVID‑19 Period

In the present case, the plaintiffs’ family‑owned fuel station, built on land belonging to the parents and aunts of the undersigned plaintiff, was subjected to court‑ordered closure through proceedings initiated by a so‑called “ordinary partnership” that had no tax identification number, no valid commercial registration and, according to available records, had in fact been dissolved approximately two decades earlier. These proceedings were conducted without proper notification to any of the landowners and without the court verifying the legal and fiscal standing of the claimant, despite the obvious requirement that any operator of a fuel station must demonstrate a valid tax ID and operating status before being allowed to sue.

The plaintiffs submit that the timing and manner of these secretive proceedings, which culminated in the closure of the family’s station just before and during the COVID‑19 pandemic, raise a serious suspicion that the station and its surrounding infrastructure may have been treated as part of an undisclosed backend monitoring architecture linked to central “health” phone systems. In other words, the way in which the family was procedurally excluded suggests that the true purpose of the closure and subsequent control over the site may have been to prevent the owners from understanding how backend systems and centralised phone‑based platforms were being used to observe or model COVID‑related aerosol risks in that location, without any transparent Legal Warning or informed consent.

İngilizceye çevir lütfen.

Allegation Concerning HES‑Type Systems and Backend Architecture

During the period relevant to this action, the HES‑type applications in use effectively transformed millions of smartphones into front‑end terminals connected to central servers under the control of the defendants. By design, such a system is technically capable not only of collecting location and contact data, but also of aggregating and correlating data streams originating from fixed environmental sensors (including, for example, gas and air‑quality detection devices installed at fuel stations, LNG/LPG loading facilities, underground natural gas infrastructure and other critical sites) within the same backend architecture.

At this stage, the plaintiffs do not claim to possess direct internal evidence such as source code, internal correspondence or technical documentation conclusively proving that the HES infrastructure was in fact integrated with those fixed sensor systems. However, (i) the ease with which such integration could have been implemented from a technical standpoint, (ii) the unexplained discrepancies observed in outcomes and levels of protection, and (iii) indications that risk was managed selectively, together support a strong suspicion that data from smartphones were processed in conjunction with infrastructure‑embedded sensor systems.

In this context, it must be acknowledged that the HES‑type system had the capacity, on the one hand, to process individuals’ movement and contact information and, on the other hand, where present, to process environmental sensor data within the same backend, thereby enabling high‑resolution tracking of invisible aerosol risks in indoor spaces. If this capacity was in fact activated, and if the defendants used the resulting detailed risk information to protect only certain persons or institutions while withholding it from the general public, such conduct would constitute a serious legal violation in the form of failure to warn, misuse of information, and discriminatory risk management.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs respectfully request that the defendants be ordered to disclose in full, with respect to the HES and similar digital monitoring infrastructures:

• the system architecture,
• the data‑flow diagrams,
• all points of integration, if any, with fixed sensor systems, and
• the logs/records and algorithmic decision‑making processes for the relevant period,

so that these materials may be subjected to independent technical expert review and it may be determined whether the backend systems were in fact linked to environmental sensing infrastructure. Failing such disclosure, the court should draw adverse inferences and evaluate, in favour of the plaintiffs, the presumption that the defendants retained exclusive control over critical information and concealed life‑saving risk maps from the general population.