Attachment to Case Management Statement for Case CGC-14-539972 (S. LOUIS MARTIN V GOOGLE, INC.), for 22 April 2015 Meeting: MOTION-TO-STRIKE ISSUES ADDRESSED IN REBUTTAL DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS DEMURRER ISSUES

In the 3 February 2015 hearing, Judge Goldsmith stated that Plaintiff failed to address the Defendant's Motion to Strike. This is untrue. The issues raised in the Motion to Strike were addressed in the primary rebuttal document called "THE CASE FOR CONTINUING THE CASE AGAINST GOOGLE—AND REJECTING ITS DEMURRER REQUEST" as well as in the supplementary documents titled "What Is Google?", “Supplement: Shifting Search Scenarios, Extreme Bias”, and “Evidence: Additional Corroboration Links”. Note that the latter three documents were all suppressed in the Register of Actions. Note also that the title of the primary rebuttal document clearly expresses the rejection of the notion that the case should be struck. All of these documents can be viewed at:

Let us look at each issue raised in Google's statements in support of its Motion to Strike.

First let us look at the document titled “DECLARATION OF DAVID H. REICHENBERT IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC. TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CIV. PROC. CODE § 425.16”. Six (6) issues are raised by Attorney Reichenberg.

1. The first is irrelevant to this consideration. It states that David Reichenberg of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represents Google in the case and is competent. I can neither attest to Attorney Reichenberg's competence or incompetence.

2. Here Attorney Reichenberg cites the now infamous Federal Trade Commission report of 3 January 2013, which states that "Google's display of its own content could plausibly be viewed as an improvement in the overall quality of Google's search product." Consider Merriam-Webster's definition of the word "plausible":

superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.

The FTC is humoring us, and this was addressed in the suppressed supplementary document titled "What Is Google?" quoted below:

The FTC, after 19 months of "studying" the issue of Google search bias, concluded what any intelligent twelve-year old could conclude in 20 minutes: that Google search results are biased. But it chose not to punish Google on the grounds that it did not harm the consumer. That is equivalent to a court of law saying that lying witnesses do no harm in the court room. It is a preposterous and illogical conclusion obtained via a 24-million-dollar lobbying campaign by Google.

Attorney Reichenberg also states from the FTC report that the commission did not find "sufficient evidence that Google manipulates its search algorithms to unfairly disadvantage vertical websites that compete with Google-owned vertical properties." This is addressed by point 17 in the primary rebuttal document title "THE CASE FOR CONTINUING THE CASE AGAINST GOOGLE—AND REJECTING ITS DEMURRER REQUEST." Here is part of what that document said:

Making a website invisible is a death sentence to a business. This is well known. Read Foundem's and yelp's stories of being disappeared. If customers don't know you exist, this is death to the business.

Moreover, an article cited in another suppressed document ("Evidence: Additional Corroboration Links") makes clear how Google got such an outrageous ruling. The title of the article says it all: "Google Spent 25 million lobbying Washington during the course of the FTC probe, and it worked (TNW)"

3. Attorney Reichenberg discusses terms of the AdSense policy. Point 5 in the primary rebuttal document addresses AdSense policy, which is ever-changing.

4. We had no "adult" content as defined by legal precedent (COMMONWEALTH v. John REX) and expert sources (Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster). However, to satisfy well-known pornographer Google, we removed the AdSense code from the page per Google's request. Google then stated that there could be other, though unspecified, problems. This is all addressed in the rebuttal document under point 2. It is a non-issue. As shown in the suppressed document titled "What Is Google?", the real motivation for disappearing CoastNews was money. Google wanted us out of their lucrative restaurant advertising space. We have again deceptive business practices at work here.

5. This point is not an issue as the ad code, as stated, was removed. This too is stated in the primary rebuttal document.

6. This is more of the same issue: adult content, which we do not have. Moreover ad code for the nudist colony story was removed, making this not an issue. Google is the one with adult content. Go to and search on "young naked girls". Apparently such hard-core smut is profitable for Google, as they refuse to remove it.


Here we are able to simplify. Every point made here depends on Google’s claim to be a publisher. This was thoroughly refuted in the Plaintiff’s primary rebuttal document (“THE CASE FOR CONTINUING THE CASE AGAINST GOOGLE—AND REJECTING ITS DEMURRER REQUEST”). All points are made moot by this false statement.

The most pervasive myth in Google’s legal boondoggle is that it, Google, is a publisher. It has had some success peddling this notation in courts due to massive lobbying and the fact that most judges neither understand the search-engine business nor the underlying technology. Nevertheless, Google has no more resemblance to a publisher than a mosquito has to a butterfly. This has been exhaustively examined in the cited document above, but I will just add one more point. Search engines do not have the ability to make “editorial judgments”; nor do they have the ability to form “opinions”. Judgment requires fine cognitive ability and the ability to think. According to Merriam-Webster, judgment involves “careful thought.” According to Wikipedia judgment involves “quality of cognitive faculties and adjudicational capabilities.” Does this sound like a computer algorithm? Google is asking us to buy an Orwellian state of affairs that thankfully does not exit. Finally, the document titled “Supplement: Shifting Search Scenarios, Extreme Bias” (also suppressed in the Register of Actions) makes it clear why Google is doing all this: By getting rid of real publishers Google can make an order of magnitude more money by replacing them with unmarked Google AdWords customers and Google properties. This was not the idea behind First Amendment rights of the free press.

By /s/ S. Louis Martin
Pro se representative for Plaintiff
S. Louis Martin
24 February 2015