26 November 2014

Does Google now lease San Francisco Superior Count?

Just a few weeks back, Google leased Moffett Field for 60 years. It would appear that Google has now leased San Francisco Superior Court. Consider Google's recent "victory" in the case of S. LOUIS MARTIN VS GOOGLE, INC. The case was struck down before it got started. At the very first hearing, to discuss Google's request to strike the case in the form of a demurrer request, the judge simply asked Google's attorney if he wanted the case struck. The attorney responded in the affirmative. A deal was done.The basis for striking, according to judge Ernest Goldsmith, was that the plaintiff, S. Louis Martin, had not responded to Google demurrer request.

(The case originated with Google halting ad delivery to, owned by Martin, on the far-fetched notion that was a pornogrphy site; it clearly is not The real motivation, some research revealed, was that was in the top listings in the restaurant space in San Francisco and this interfered with the placement of Google's own properties and AdWords customers.  See THE COMPLAINT AGAINST GOOGLE and Shifting Search Scenarios, Extreme Bias.)

Martin vigorously asserted that this was untrue. One rebuttal document, two evidence documents, and three supplemental documents had been filed. All were clearly shown in the court's Register of Actions, which is the main documentation used by the court in cases. All judges know of it, and no honest judge would make a judgment without viewing it. (S. LOUIS MARTIN VS. GOOGLE, INC is Case 539972.) The judge and the clerk both looked up the case, and it was plainly true that Martin had responded. Six documents filed by Martin plainly showed this. The judge said nothing more, however, letting the strike stand. He surely knew that his basis for striking the case was blatantly false and that Martin had responded. Martin had in fact spent three months, full-time, researching, writing, and assembling the various documents addressing Google's demurrer/request to strike.

But the situation is even stranger than described above. Some two weeks before the hearing date, the first and possibly the last in the case, Martin became concerned about the fact that Google's filings were promptly posted to the Register of Actions and always showed up as viewable. Out of seven documents filed by Martin, only two were viewable in the Register of Actions and only one showed up at all under Documents for the case. Martin began to make frantic calls to the court to determine why Google was getting preferential treatment. Out of some 15 calls to four different departments at the court, including one to the manager of the court, none was returned. Martin's concern began to grow that something was very wrong. Martin took an unusual step the day before the hearing and filed all documents again—with the same result. None were made viewable and still are not. They were shown listed by document title in the Register of Actions—clear proof of being filed—but no document could be viewed. Martin had been made invisible by the court. This was curious, as visibility was the basis of the case against Google: Google had "disappeared", Martin's website, and engaged in anti-competitive practices. Now it appeared the court was doing the same!

(Google did this on the basis that it is a publisher, something that no one buys other than Google, and that it had First Amendment rights to do anything it wanted. See THE CASE FOR CONTINUING THE CASE AGAINST GOOGLE—AND REJECTING ITS DEMURRER REQUEST and What Is Google?)

Then the day of the hearing came around, 13 November 2014. Martin, well prepared—maybe even overprepared—to discuss the case and at any level of detail, was absolutely blindsided by the judge; Martin virtually staggered out of the court. Martin expected that something like this might occur downstream but not at this early stage of the process. What was the hurry to end the case with no discussion? Did the judge have no questions at all? Was the only question the one asked of Google's attorney: "Is it okay with Google to strike the case?" Surely there must have been at least one question the judge had for the plaintiff!

You can easily verify the truth of what has been stated above by going to the Register of Actions here:

then entering the dynamic security code displayed, then entering the case number, 539972, on the page that comes up.

You will see seven filings by S. Louis Martin, plaintiff, along with the later double filings on 12 November 2014.

Second down from the top you can view the judge's order of 13 November 2014 granting Google's request, with the judge stating that "Plaintiff has failed to file an opposition to the Defendant's Motion, and has produced no evidence supporting a probability of success." That is nothing but a blatant falsehood easily shown as such by a cursory viewing of the Record of Actions below the judge's strike order. Martin responded massively to Google, with six documents refuting all arguments made by Google and going far beyond that with filings of evidence by corroborating experts. Did the judge really have not a single question to ask Martin, or did he just want to get rid of Martin fast?

I can only say that this was a shameful day in the Superior Court of San Francisco. I was prepared with all documents in hand, along with extensive notes, and I was simply shut up. The positive side? I was not arrested on some bogus charge and locked up. The negative? Google walked out of court a very satisfied customer.

All documents filed in the court by Martin were also viewable on here:

Does this look like "no response supporting a probability of success?" My guess is that it looked like too much evidence supporting an overwhelming victory and therefore calling for a coup de tête.

You can also see that Martin was in the discovery process, with many contacts being made to industry experts. Martin was in fact way ahead of the game and Google.

Martin's intention now is to have the judge's order "vacated," as by simple observation of the court records it is blatantly false. No honest court of law could do other than vacate such a judgment.

Martin is also looking into hacking of his computer and email by Google. There is mounting evidence suggesting this has occurred.

So who is running the superior court in San Francisco? The court or Google? All the evidence points to Google.

Dr. S. Louis Martin


telephone: 415-871-6803
address: 588 Sutter Street, No. 105, San Francisco, CA 94102

Note: If you email, please confirm with a telephone call or text message that you have sent email. Thanks!