Shakespeare got it right in Hamlet:

In the corrupted currents of this world
Offense's gilded hand may shove by justice,
And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself
Buys out the law; but tis not so above.

This judgment should be vacated, but probably won't be, for the following reasons:

1. Google's Declaration of Proposed Judgment was five months late in being filed; and it was not properly served on the Plaintiff. According to CRC 3.1312(a), it must be filed within five days of granting of the order, not five months! Also, no third-party served the document electronically to the Plaintiff, and as the Plaintiff was out of town, the paper service of the document did not reach him in time to file objections within the required five days!

2. The Plaintiff's documents have not been made visible in the Register of Actions and no explanation has ever been made for this. Law schools and news media wanted access. These are public documents, and in a democratic system of government as in the United State, suppression of public documents erodes the democratic process.

3. Moreover, it appears that the judge in this case has never read the majority (any?) of the filed documents by S. LOUIS MARTIN. How can a person make judgments on matters that a person knows nothing about?

4. Huge bias has been shown throughout all proceedings. From suppression of most of the Plaintiff's documents to extending deadlines for filing by Google, the court has shown huge favoritism. As another example, Google filed its response to the complaint 15 days late. The requirement is 30 days; Google filed in 45 days. Was any such leeway granted the Plaintiff? Absolutely not! With a pending investigation of the judge for perjury and an investigation of Google for hacking the Plaintiff's computer (now proven), not one extra day has been allowed.

5. Perhaps the greatest irregularity in this case is the judge's perjury, clearly viewable in the Register of Actions. In the judge’s Strike Order of 13 November 2014, he states that the Plaintiff filed no rebuttal to the Defendant's Special Motion to Strike and Demurrer request. The Register of Actions shows clearly the opposite. And an attachment to the 22 April 2015 Case Management meeting that explained the response point by point appears to have been totally ignored. Note also that the meeting was conveniently cancelled as, is likely, it would have cast an extremely negative light on both judge and Defendant. Perjury and hacking are criminal activities.

6. There is also the matter of Google's hacking attacks. They have now been proven and the results can be seen in a second attachment to the cancelled 22 April 2015 Case Management meeting. Apparently such criminal activity is also of no concern to the court and this judge.

7. There has been significant new evidence in the case:

a. The disclosure of leaked documents concerning the 2013 "ruling" by the FTC regarding Google disclosed that the actual investigators concluded that Google was guilty of anticompetitive behavior, with harm both to competing businesses and to consumer, and these real investigators recommended punishing Google for it. The administrative law judges with the FTC, who are politically appointed animals, chose to deal with Google in a political way. However, they did not exonerate Google, as Google has falsely claimed in court documents; quite to the contrary, they put Google on probation for 20 years but did nothing to stop their anticompetitive behavior. (Note also here that the whole basis of the Strike Order is the absurd notion presented by Google that it is a Publisher and can do anything it wants. Why didn't the FTC buy that notion in the two years of investigation and simply drop their investigation? Why? Because they knew it was nonsense.)

b. The European Union's anticompetitive body has initiated a lawsuit against Google on the same grounds as raised by S. LOUIS MARTIN. Would they do so frivolously? Not likely. Nor would S. LOUIS MARTIN in his lawsuit.

c. Since the revelation of the leaked documents to the Wall Street Journal, the US Congress will resume its investigation into Google's anticompetitive behavior.

Items a, b, and c above are all new "competent" evidence that no honest judge can overlook.

8. Throughout this case a double standard has been applied: One to the gilded hand of Google, quite another to poor-boy S. LOUIS MARTIN. Beyond extraordinarily generous extensions of deadlines to Google on its filings, and unquestioning acceptance of any idea put forth by Google, the court has failed to ask a single substantive question of S. LOUIS MARTIN, with apparently no curiosity whatsoever to know what the "fuss" is all about.

9. Every time a Case Management meeting is scheduled, it gets cancelled when significant documents are filed. When I am prepared with new documents and related information, such as easy-to-prove allegations of perjury by the judge and proven hacking attacks by the Defendant, and Google has nothing new to offer, the meeting is cancelled without explanation. I think there is no mystery here. It is one more way to suppress the facts of the case and throw the prize to American Champion Google.

10. The whole case is tainted by politics and money. It is taking place in the “corrupted currents” of the new digital landscape, demonstrating that moral authority has not improved in the last 450 or so years.

11. The grammar of the Strike Order of 13 November 2014 is faulty. Please reread it. It says that the Plaintiff's complaint is protected by Free Speech rights, not Google's bad behavior. I presume the judge meant to say that Google's bad behavior was protected by First Amendment rights but that is not what it says. Thus the Strike Order itself is faulty and should at least be rewritten.

If the court cares to enhance the evidence of serious judicial misbehavior, then ignoring this motion and signing a final dismissal is certainly the way to go, guaranteeing the case moves "above" to a higher moral authority.


By /s/ S. Louis Martin
Pro se representative for Plaintiff
S. Louis Martin
28 April 2015

Hearing Reservation Number: 04280629-03
Hearing Department: 302
Hearing Date: 29 June 2015
Hearing Time: 9:30 AM