|Attachment to Case Management Statement
for Case CGC-14-539972 (S. LOUIS MARTIN V GOOGLE, INC.), for 31 December
The judge and the court have shown extreme bias in this case.
The judge’s statement in his 13 November 2014 strike order that "the Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to Defendant's motion, and has produced no evidence supporting a probability of success" is blatantly false. The plaintiff filed multiple documents refuting Google’s Answer to the Complaint. The Register of Actions clearly shows this.
The judge also failed to ask a single question of the Plaintiff at the one and only hearing on 13 November 2014. That is highly abnormal and indicative of bias. The only question asked was if Google wanted the case struck. Google answered in the affirmative and a deal was done. Is this not at the minimum tacit collusion between the judge and Google?
Moreover, while all Google’s filings were made public, only two out of seven were for Plaintiff S. Louis Martin. Filings from 12 September 2014 on are still not publically viewable, and repeated calls to the court have failed to rectify the matter or produce an explanation. Is this fair treatment?
Note also that not one call to the court has ever been returned. I do believe that if I had called and said I was the attorney for Google, the calls would have been returned. In desperation before the 13 November 2014 hearing, I double-filed all documents in the hope that they would be made available to the public. They had the same fate as the original documents. All were unviewable. (They show up in the Register of Actions as filed but cannot be viewed.)
There is another disadvantage that the Plaintiff has suffered in this case: Not one attorney was willing to take the case. The reason? Not the merits of the case. It appears that no attorney in the San Francisco Bay Area believes the case is winnable, given the politics and money involved. The court will simply side with Google no matter what the merits of the case are. I sought assistance of the Bar Association of San Francisco lawyer referral service. I made calls on my own to legal firms specializing in antitrust law. No one was interested in going up against Google and the Superior court in San Francisco.
The fact is, this is a case involving politics and money; any judge who sides against Google is going to be in big trouble, and any lawyer who challenges that judge’s honesty is going to be in trouble with that judge. It is the age-old story of corruption in the form of tacit collusion.
As the case now stands, it is these conditions, not the merits of the case, that make it nearly impossible to win.
But that is not quite the end of the problem. While perjury is a crime, so is computer hacking. And that is the way it is looking. This is still under investigation –- and can be hard to prove, as the recent Sony hacking case reveals –- but it appears that Google has repeatedly hacked my computer. On 12 December 2014 there were 43 TCP/IP simultaneous connections to my computer that traced back to Google. Email blocking is being investigated as well. (This is backed by netstat reports.) And tracking software now shows that few Google-related emails get delivered.
The motivation for hacking is there, because if this case were to prevail, then others could sue for the same reason, and Google’ well-documented monopolistic abuse of power would end. It would no longer be able to disappear competitors. Advertising is how Google makes its money, not with self-driving cars or designer Google Glasses. Google is not a publisher, as it claims, but rather an advertising broker and a very dishonest one, returning mostly unmarked advertisements as search results. This is hugely profitable if you can get away with it, which Google has to date; and it also harms the consumer, as it is deceptive. Only two or three users out of 1000 will click on an ad if they know it is an ad.
All of the above needs serious discussion before the hearing of 3 February 2015 for the Motion to Vacate the strike order of 13 November 2014.
By /s/ S. Louis Martin
Pro se representative for Plaintiff
S. Louis Martin
22 December 2014