Commission on Judicial Performance
955 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 14400
San Francisco, CA 94102
S. Louis Martin
588 Sutter Street, No. 105
San Francisco, CA 94102
23 January 2015
Dear Commission on Judicial Performance,
I am writing to you about the performance of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith (Department 302) in the case of S. LOUIS MARTIN V GOOGLE, INC. (Case Number CGC-14-539972).
(I, S. LOUIS MARTIN, am the Plaintiff; the case regards antitrust violations by Defendant GOOGLE, INC., unfair business practices, and destruction of business property, the CoastNews.com website.)
Judge Goldsmith has shown extreme bias in favor of Defendant Google, which culminated in the commission of perjury on 13 November 2014. Proof of perjury is easy to see: On the first and only hearing date, 13 November 2014, Judge Goldsmith signed a strike order, declaring in this written statement that the Plaintiff had failed to provide a response to Google's demurrer and strike request. That is blatant fabrication. One lengthy, point-by-point rebuttal and four supplementary documents were filed. This is easily seen in the Registry of Actions for the case.
Note: You will see from the Register of Actions that these documents were filed, but you will also see that most are not viewable. You can view all documents on the CoastNews.com website here:
When this was pointed out to the judge in the 13 November 2014 hearing and verified by the clerk of the court, the judge signed the strike order anyway; he knew full well that his statement ("Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to Defendant's Motion, and has produced no evidence supporting a probability of success.") was false. The Plaintiff had filed multiple documents in response to Google and in fact had a high probability of success; moreover, the Plaintiff's views were supported by almost every industry expert. In fact, many supporting statements had been supplied as evidence in the public record. I don't know if the judge was on Google's payroll or not, but he certainly behaved like a loyal Team Google member.
In the 13 November 2014 court meeting, judge Goldsmith had absolutely no questions prepared for me and asked none; apparently a decision had been made sans inquiry and sans review of the public record (Register of Actions). I was prepared to answer questions, which is customary for first meetings, and had all seven documents in hand, along with copious notes for discussion. The judge simply asked Defendant Google if it wanted him to strike the case; Google answered in the affirmative; and the judge signed the strike order. A deal was done between Judge Goldsmith and Google. I had worked almost four-straight months preparing documents and filing them. This was simply devastating. Google had not only destroyed my business by making it "disappear" on the Internet (something it has done to many smaller businesses that get in the way of its own properties and AdWords customers), but it had now seemingly cut a deal to make my complaint disappear. Moreover, this was a high-profile case in the United States that was being closely watched by law schools and the media. It was crucial for Google to win because if it didn't, other business owners of disappeared websites might challenge Google on the grounds of antitrust violations and unfair business practices. Yelp, Nextag, Foundem, TripAdvisor ... have all experienced being made invisible by Google via biased search results that favor its, Google's, own properties and AdWords customers.
But the situation was even worse than portrayed above. The court had made all of Google's filings viewable. Of my filings at that time, seven in number, only two were viewable. As stated above, this was a high-profile case, with university law schools following it, along with the news media. But none were able to see the real documents that told the story—only Google's verbose legalese and volumes of irrelevant, non-binding precedents were viewable. Thus with the judge's strike order it appeared that Google had triumphed in this case about "First Amendment rights"—which in fact the case had nothing to do with—warning others that seeking remedy for their grievances was just going to be a big waste of time. In fact, however, no discussion of the case ever occurred in the court; and apparently the judge never even looked at the documents filed in the Register of Actions. This surely constitutes malfeasance on the part of the judge and perhaps members of other departments of the court who suppressed documents.
While I made multiple calls and visits to the court, no one could or would tell me why Plaintiff's documents had been made unviewable. In desperation the day before the 13 November 2014 hearing, I refiled all documents with the same result: no document was made viewable by the court (and is still not). You can see this double filing in the Register of Actions. The problem of viewability was pointed out in the hearing; the judge had no comment! Would you not expect a judge to at least be curious about such a strange and unfair situation? Is this not just one more expression of bias?
You can see all of this by going to the San Francisco Superior Court Register of Actions and entering case number 539972. You will see clearly that a rebuttal was filed, along with four supplmentary documents. These documents challenged Google's main contention that it is a "publisher" with First Amendment rights and therefore has the right to do anything it wants to real publishers, including making them invisible—a death sentence to a publisher since Google is the de facto gatekeeper to the Internet. No one buys Google's argument that it is a publisher other than Google; it is an advertising broker and a very dishonest one. One of our suppressed supplementary filings lays this out very clearly and is in sync with proof recently offered by yelp, causing Business Insider to call Google "horribly biased."
Please note that I'm also planning to request a related investigation of Google by the IC3.gov, the federal Internet Crime Center. Google has made all related documents in this case posted on my website, CoastNews.com, invisible to search engines—not only on Google Search, but Bing, Yahoo, and others. Search for an existing page, and these search engines say that it does not exist! How Google has pulled this one off I don't yet know. Clearly, however, this seems to be coordinated with the suppression of documents on the Register of Actions. This will be a criminal complaint. But the "monkey business" doesn't stop there. Google appears to be hacking my computer, with 41 TCP/IP connections discovered on one day, along with email blocking, making the Discovery process nearly impossible.
(Note on current status of the case: I have filed a Motion to Vacate the strike order with a hearing set for 3 February 2015, but I plan to file a Request for Continuance pending the result of your investigation and that of IC3.gov. It makes no sense to have a hearing for a judge to pass judgment on whether he is a perjurer or not.)
I request that the Commission investigates Judge Ernest Goldsmith for perjury and malfeasance in Case CGC-14-539972. Perjury is easily provable from a cursory glance at the Register of Actions and constitutes malfeasance on the part of the judge. It also smacks of collusion, tacit or explicit, with Defendant Google and is in keeping with the devious behavior of Google that suppresses public documents on the Internet either (1) for profit by favoring its own properties and customers over others or (2) to protect itself from public and judicial scrutiny, as is the matter here.
Dr. S. Louis Martin
Editor, CoastNews.com and Limpair.net