Hospitals & Asylums
Google Inc. v. Hospitals & Asylums HA-24-10-06
By Anthony J. Sanders www.title24uscode.org
Hospitals & Asylums (HA) advocates for human rights, public
health and economics in America and around the world.
HA seeks to be reinstated as the top rank search engine
response for the search string Hospitals & Asylums
U.S.
Patent 6,285,999 Google's ranking mechanism (PageRank) was granted on
September 4, 2001.
Est.
11,652,570 shares of
Google closed on NASDAQ at $459.67 +33.61
from the previous day (7.89%) at 04:00PM EDT on
20 October 2006 for total of $5,356,300,000
UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL GOOGLE BE LIABLE TO
YOU FOR ANY AMOUNT EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1000.00)
Wherefore the defendant asks for only one Google
share as compensation for infringement
1. This counter
notification is brought before Google by HA to redress a grievous case of
censoreship without notification in hopes of redressing the HA domain that won
first place before plummetting to earth like Icarus and Phaeton after the
infringement of the $111 billion “Google” Official Development Atlas of the
States of the United Nations (SUN). Hospitals & Asylums (HA) at
title24uscode.org should be the first response for that search string, as it
was in the beginning of 2006, whereas HA is the only organization dedicated to
the name of Hospitals & Asylums (HA) and HA is not engaged in any
propaganda for war, espionage or criminal proceedings, of any sort. In fact the website contains the solar
system’s best legitimate plan for peace and liberation of the United States of
America in existence and warrants Google’s interest. HA is entitled to promotion as the first Google response for the
search string “Hospitals & Asylums”, with a caption as follows,
Hospitals &
Asylums (HA) advocates for human rights, public health and economics in America
and around the world.
2. Hospitals & Asylums (HA)
is a nongovernmental organization dedicated to drafting a new statute for Title
24 of the United States Code. HA was
formally discovered by Tony Sanders in Constitutional Mental Health
Commission v. Pauline Warfield Lewis Center No. (Fed. 6th Cir.)
of Halloween 2000, shortly after he received his diploma in International
Affairs in 2000. In 2001 HA began
publishing a quarterly journal mostly to judge mental health on the equinox and
solstice. After 9-11, before the
beginning of the Iraq war, obligations to diplomats regarding world peace
overshadowed the comitment to freedom, compelling HA to draft a brief to the
International Court of Justice titled, Afghanistan & Iraq v. USA HA-20-12-02,
that was revised twice before
being superceded, that settled the largest war reparations in the history of
international law - $33 billion at the
Madrid Conference in September 2003, $20 billion as requested from the USA.
This propelled HA
from a collection of multimillion community resettlement plans to multibillion
international settlement consultant in a matter of a drafting a new
Constitution for Iraq titled New Iraq Constitutional Elections (NICE) and a Constitution of Korea
(CoK) in 2003 and
2004. Having mastered legitimacy in two
foreign nations the drive to draft a new HA Statute for the causa belli
of the United States, was heightened.
In January of 2004 Bank One made a public declaration regarding the $1
trillion decade in the Hearing
AID Act now of 2007. HA was
occupied with drafting a 10 Chapter book until December 2004 when the
title24uscode.org domain was registered and the first draft of the manuscript
published on the Internet. Dissatisfied
with the reception of the Congress, balancing the budget became a priority and
was quickly accomplished and HA most recently produced a Balanced Account
Deficit (BAD) that was
successfully less than $1 trillion with which to guide the US. In May of 2005 HA applied to the NGO Section
of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs for general consultative status
and was rewarded with an invitation to study for a Phd at the MERIT/Intech
program in economics and technical change and $1 million first place prize from
Euro Millions Lottery International however corruption proved disabling, as
partially explained in Jose Antonio
Ocampo v. Luis Moreno-Ocampo HA-22-6-06. In March of 2006
HA balanced the ODA of the SUN
at the Google Inc., suggested rate of $111 billion, that was enforced with
draft amendments to Chapter XII of the UN Charter replacing the International
Trusteeship System with an International Taxation System HA-16-9-06.
Bank Afghanistan Day (BAD) is re-prioritized for a settlement equal with
Iraq but dependent upon state opium rather than state oil HA-9-11-06. HA distributes a quarterly journal to an
estimated 25,000 people who publicly disclose their email addresses and a
monthly for dozens of subscribers. HA
maintains pages to monitor the organization’s litigation, legislation, public
health and the Statute that is on the homepage and is amended Chapter by
Chapter at different times of the year scheduled in the Constitution of
Hospitals & Asylums Non Governmental Ethics (CHANGE) until Congress
will be ready to begin printing HA laws as early as 2008 but not later than 2020. The website receives an average of 3,000
hits a month with a high of 5,500 in April 2006 shortly before the domain was
unfairly censored by Google Inc. search engines. Please give the world the gift of HA again so that the reading
comprehension of the public will not be interfered with by discriminatory
policies not in line with the Freedom of Information Act.
3. The circumstances
are that, after a year of maintaining the website, Anthony J. Sanders the writer
of HA, got the bright idea to sue the entire world in his quarterly report on
the Winter Solstice to request the Christmas gift of top rank Google search
engine response for the search string Hospitals & Asylums whereas his is
the only website specialized in the study of this Title of law. The events that led to the execution of this
request are unclear but some time in the beginning of 2006 Google began to
HA. Google seems to have not merely
given HA top rank but taken an interest in the research upon the aforementioned
atlas and dishonestly suggested the $111 billion price tag for the Official
Development Assistance this 2006 as Google market capitalization, that was
accepted by HA as the global aggregate demand for Offical Development Assistance
however rejected as the amount of assetts held by Google, as it was presented
to the news media in breech of the Lanham Act.
Within a couple months, during a relentless arbitrary and unlawful
interference in the author’s privacy, family and home, Google consented to
destroy the reputation of the HA website, by deranking it. By June when it was thought to verify the
status of the website it had been demoted to something like fiftieth place
beneath numerous obscure articles on institutions for mental disease, the
classical evil usurpers of the word “asylum”, in what we shall construe as a
non independent discrimination on the basis of disability. After checking this status the ranking was
even lower, so low that the website could not be discovered.
4. This censoreship
of the HA website is a flagrant interferent with the freedom of expression,
consciounse, thought and opinion of HA for which the author has the right to
the protection of the law under Art. 17 & 19 International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights. This
censoreship by Google is a complete reversal of legal censoreship. The censoreship was conducted with the sole
purpose to interfere with the rights and reputation of HA and did not serve any
legitimate purpose to prohibit propaganda for war or other threat against
national security. To aggravate this
censoreship HA is the respository of a great deal of critical information
protecting the national security, public order, public health, morals and peace
that must be readily accessible to the public or terrorists and warmongers
would be inclined to think that they had achieved an unfair advantage and could
engage in criminal actions and propaganda for war without so much as a check
upon their power. This of course brings
to mind Gresham’s law that, bad money drives good money out of
circulation. The attackers furthermore
used the knowledge that HA is disadvantaged by corruption at Google to engage
in poisonous and treacherous attacks upon the author, his family and home,
under the cover of darkness.
Relegating HA to an inferior status of non recognition is therefore a
grave threat to international peace and social security that is dependent upon
easy and public access to the best research existent so that this extremely
public information that, all could be well, does not fall into a few left hands
while the other hands feel free to infringe upon the author’s rights.
5. Censoreship is
normally a civil issue of whether or not the censored work engages in any
propaganda for war or espionage detrimental to the national security. However in this case Google Inc. has
publicly and voluntraily made a false statement to declare their interest in
the work of HA. At the time HA gained
first rank search engine response and when the author became victimized Google
went along with the detractors to damage his reputation. Whereas Google’s $111 billion false
declaration was in fact a demonstration of their special ability to select an
auspicious number for the aggregate total of official development assistance
this 2006 the scienter, malicious intent, required to prove fraud, is in
question. However the fact that Google
later censored HA from the search engine ranking and they had engaged in
behavior that can be construed as fraud directed at HA in detriment of the
corporations self interest in accurate record keeping and reputation regarding
respect for intellectual property.
Furthermore, whereas this sort of dangerous and undignified censoreship
was performed without any of the legal procedures elaborated upon in the Sixth
Amendment to the US Constitution regarding the right of the defendant to
confront their accusers nor the standards regarding the rare warlike
circumstances when the atrocious act of censoreship is permissable under Art.
19 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, HA is
entitled to redress by Google Inc.
Whereas this case involves relisting HA as the top search engine
response it is hoped to resolve this litigation privately by both parties
tacitly agreeing to this contract whereby Google would be bound to keep HA as
the top search engine response for Hospitals & Asylums so that people could
find the website by merely remembering those three words.
6. The
domain google.com was registered on September 15, 1997. The name google refers to the
number represented by the numeral 1 followed by 100 zeros. The founders
formally incorporated their company, Google Inc.,
on September 7, 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California. Google officially became the world's largest
search engine with its introduction of a billion-page index on June 2000. As 2000 ended, Google was already handling
more than 100 million search queries a day.
On April 29, 2004, Google made an S-1 form SEC filing for an Initial Public
Offering (IPO) to raise as much as $2,718,281,828. This alludes to Google's
corporate culture with a touch of mathematical humor as e ~ 2.718281828. April
29 was also the 120th day of 2004, and according to section 12(g) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, "a company must file financial and other
information with the SEC 120 days after the close of the year in which the
company reaches $10 million in assets and/or 500 shareholders, including people
with stock options. The SEC filing revealed that Google turned a profit every year
since 2001 and earned a profit of $105.6 million on revenues of $961.8 million
during 2003. Google’s initial public
offering took place on August 19, 2004. 19,605,052 shares were offered at a
price of $85 per share. Of that, 14,142,135 (another mathematical reference as √2 ~
1.4142135) were floated by Google and 5,462,917 by selling stockholders. The
sale raised $1.67 Billion, of which approximately $1.2 Billion went to Google.
The IPO gave Google a market capitalization of more than $23 Billion. Many of
Google's 3,500 employees became instant paper millionaires. Yahoo!, a
competitor of Google, also benefited from the IPO because it owns 2.7 million
shares of Google. The company was listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange under the
ticker symbol GOOG. In a few short years Google has grown from a
$100,000 subscription to a billion dollar public monopoly that controls an
estimated 80% of the search engine market and has plans for the colonization of
the moon like HA.
7. Google
stated in its Annual filing for 2004 that every one of its 3,021 employees,
"except temporary employees and contractors, are also equity holders, with
significant collective employee ownership." On 3 March 2006 Saul Hansell of the New York Time wrote, “Google
Tries to Reassure Wall Street”. The declaration that Google's market
capitalization was $111 billion, although SEC reported that Google had revenues
of only $6 billion in 2004, was misleading.
It was evil for Google Inc., a publicly traded corporation, to falsely
claim all the official development assistance in the world as their private
revenues, without so much as paying the author. The United Nations itself made the ultimate sacrifice in the cases
of Milan Babic, Slobodan Milosevic and Lee Jong-wook and cancelled both the
World Summit and the 2006 rounds of the Doha trade talks. God is obviously angry this 2006. What can Google do to appease the God of the
SUN? The acronym that sheds light upon
theologic problem is the Google Official Development Atlas (GOD-A) of the
SUN. This of course brings to mind the
Greek God Apollo, who was in classical times, the god of the sun. The sun god has always been perilous for
mortals. Sacrifices were attributed to
this Greek god of the sun, as they were in pre-Columbian America. Icarus flew
too close to the sun and crashed to his death while his father Daedalus
watched. Phaeton a son of Apollo with a
mortal woman drove the chariot of the sun so recklessly he was stricken down by
Zeus and killed. Google has made
extraordinary progress in the amendment of their law this summer of 2006 and
there is high hope that HA will join the Greek society at Google without being
censored by secret detractors to the truth, ever again. HA like Google Inc., is here to stay.
8. Google Terms of
Service, states: Google occasionally receives requests from
people to remove links from its indices. Although Google reserves the right to
address such requests individually, the general approach that Google takes
reflects the following principles: Google's indices consist of information that
has been identified, indexed and compiled through an automated process with no
advance review by human beings. Given the enormous volume of web site
information added, deleted, and changed on a frequent basis, Google cannot and
does not screen anything made available through its indices. For each web site
reflected in Google's indices, if either (i) a site owner restricts access to
his or her web site or (ii) a site is taken down from the web, then, upon
receipt of a request by the site owner or a third party in the second instance,
Google would consider on a case-by-case basis requests to remove the link to
that site from its indices. However, if the operator of the site does not take
steps to prevent it, the automatic facilities used to create the indices are
likely to find that site and index it again in a relatively short amount of
time. These Terms of Service will be governed by and construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of California
9. Google Free Terms of Use elaborate, for purposes of
the Terms of Use, "Intellectual Property Rights" shall mean
any and all rights existing from time to time under patent law, copyright law,
semiconductor chip protection law, moral rights law, trade secret law,
trademark law, unfair competition law, publicity rights law, privacy rights
law, and any and all other proprietary rights. For purposes of the Terms of
Use, "Brand Features" shall be defined as the trade names,
trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand
features of each party, respectively, as secured by such party from time to
time. You warrant that: (1) all information provided by You to Google in
connection with the Service is true and accurate; (2) You have read and agree
to Google's terms and conditions agreement; (3) You have full power and
authority to enter into the Terms of Use; (4) Your Brand Features, Content
(defined as all editorial, text, graphic, audiovisual, and other content do not
(a) infringe any Intellectual Property Rights of any third party, (b) constitute
defamation, libel or obscenity, (c) result in any consumer fraud, product
liability, breach of contract to which You are a party or cause injury to any
third party, (d) promote violence or contain hate speech, (e) violate any
applicable law, statute, ordinance, or regulations, or (f) contain adult
content or promote illegal activities, gambling, or the sale of tobacco or
alcohol to persons under twenty-one (21) years of age.
10. It is
Goolge’s policy to respond to clear notices of alleged copyright infringement
that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of
1998 Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860 (Oct. 28, 1998). Submitting
notices of alleged infringement to Google should be as straightforward as
possible while reducing the number of notices that we receive that are
fraudulent or difficult to understand or verify under the United States Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be found at the US Copyright Office where the new registration
fee is $45 as of 1 July 2006). If
Google removes or disables access in response to such a notice, Google will
make a good-faith attempt to contact the owner or administrator of the affected
site or content so that they may make a counter notification. This has not yet
been done with HA although Google actually made an expression of interest in
the non governmental organization by declaring $111 billion. Google may also document notices of alleged
infringement on which we act. As with all legal notices, a copy of the notice
may be sent to one or more third parties who may make it available to the
public. The administrator of an affected site or the provider of affected
content may make a counter notification pursuant to sections 512(g)(2) and (3)
of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act 17USC(5)§512.
11. As the result of infringement under the DMCA by Google Inc. no copy of the material made by the service provider, HA, in the course of such intermediate or transient storage is maintained on the system or network at Google in a manner ordinarily accessible to anyone other than anticipated recipients wherefore redress is due under 512(a)(4). Under 512(b)(2) the conditions are that all material at HA is transmitted to subsequent users without modification of its content. The service provider shall comply with rules concerning the refreshing, reloading, or other updating of the material. The service provider does not interfere with the ability of technology associated with the material to return to the person. 512(b) (E) states, that if the person with whom a contract regarding a fee makes that material available online without the authorization of the copyright owner of the material, the service provider responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, then infringement occurred. If the material has previously been removed from the originating site or access to it has been disabled, and the party giving the notification includes in the notification a statement confirming that the material has been removed from the originating site or access to it had been disabled or that a court has ordered that the material be removed from the originating site or that access to the material on the originating site be disabled, then infringement occurred. 512(c) (A) a notification of claimed infringement must be a written communication provided to the designated agent of a service provider that includes substantially the following: (i) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site. (iii) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material. (iv) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted. (v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material was conducted in a manner complained of that is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. 12. The term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received. Wherefore both Google and HA are service providers. B512(j)(B)(a) a court, in considering the relevant criteria for injunctive relief under applicable law, would consider – whether such an injunction, either alone or in combination with other such injunctions issued against the same service provider under this subsection, would significantly burden either the provider or the operation of the provider's system or network. The magnitude of the harm likely to be suffered by the copyright owner in the digital network environment, if steps are not taken to prevent or restrain the infringement. Notice of ex parte orders shall be provided in all cases involving Injunctive relief and shall be available only after notice to the service providers and an opportunity for the service providers to appear are provided, except for orders ensuring the preservation of evidence or other orders having no material adverse effect on the operation of the service provider's communications network. 512(m) For the Protection of Privacy nothing shall be construed to condition a service provider monitoring its service or affirmatively seeking facts indicating infringing activity to gain access to, remove, or disable access to material in cases in which such conduct is prohibited by law such as occurred with the relationship of HA and search engines.
13. U.S. District Court of Nevada Judge Robert C.
Jones ruled that Google's caches do not constitute copyright infringement under
American law in Field v. Google and Parker v. Google NO.
CV-S-04-0413-RCJ-LRL on 12 January 2006 whereas the Field test for fair use depends upon four
factors 1. Field knew of Google’s allegedly infringing conduct; 2. Field
intended that Google rely upon his conduct or acted so that Google had a right
to believe it was so intended; 3. Google was ignorant of the true facts; and 4.
Google detrimentally relied on Field’s conduct. A plaintiff must show volitional conduct on the part of
the defendant in order to support a finding of direct copyright infringement
under Religious Tech. Ctr v. Netcom On-Line Commc’n Servs., Inc., 907 F.
Supp. 1361, 1369-70 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (direct infringement requires a volitional
act by defendant). A copyright owner may grant a nonexclusive
license expressly or impliedly through conduct under Quinn v. City of Detroit, 23 F. Supp. 2d 741, 749 (E.D. Mich. 1998).
An implied license can be found where the copyright holder engages in conduct
“from which the other party may properly infer that the owner consents to his
use.” De Forest
Radio Tel. & Tel. Co. v. United States, 273
U.S. 236, 241 (1927). Consent to
use the copyrighted work need not be manifested verbally and may be inferred
based on silence where the copyright holder knows of the use as in Keane Dealer Servs., Inc. v. Harts, 968 F. Supp. 944, 947 (S.D.N.Y. 1997). On should avoid rigid application of the
copyright statute when, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is
designed to foster” under Dr.
Seuss Enters, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1997) and Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.
v. Nation Enters., 471
U.S. 539, 566 (1985).
14. Joel
McElvain Trial Attorney for the Civil Division of the US Department of Justice
filed a subpoena in behalf of the Attorney General to the US District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Jose Division) in Gonzalez v. Google
Inc. on 18
January 2006 seeking a court order that would compel search engine
company Google Inc. to turn over, “a multi-stage random sample of one million
URL’s,” from Google’s database, and a computer file with, “the text of each
search string entered onto Google’s search engine over a one-week period
(absent any information identifying the person who entered such query).” Google
maintains that their policy has always been to assure its users privacy and
anonymity, and challenged the subpoena. Noticeably, on January 20, when both
the DOW and NYSE fell around a percent, Google stock fell close to 10%. It has
since bounced back somewhat. On March 18th 2006, a federal judge ruled that
while Google must surrender 50,000 random URLs, the Department of Justice did
not meet the necessary burden to force Google to disclose any search terms
entered by its users. The purpose of
the investigation was reported to have been the enforcement of the Child Online
Protection Act (COPA) of 1998.
15. US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed eleven claims of: (1) direct copyright infringement, (2) contributory copyright infringement, (3) vicarious copyright infringement, (4) defamation, (5) invasion of privacy, (6) negligence, (7) Lanham Act violations, (8) and (9) racketeering, (10) abuse of process, and (11) civil conspiracy in Parker v. Google Inc. NO. 04-CV-3918 on 10 March 2006. There are two elements to a successful claim of vicarious copyright infringement: (1) “the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct” and (2) “an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials.” In Omega, S.A. v. Giftland, Co., No. 03-CIV-5808, 2005 WL 1925791 (D.N.J. Aug. 11, 2005), with respect to trademark violations, “participation in activities merely related to the infringing acts is not enough whereas personal liability extends only to those persons who actively participate as a moving force in the decision to engage in the infringing acts or otherwise cause the infringement as a whole to occur.” Congress granted most Internet services immunity under 47USC(5)§230(c)(1) from liability for publishing false or defamatory material so long as the information was provided by another party. As a result, Internet publishers are treated differently from corresponding publishers in print, television and radio” under Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) and Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
16. The Lanham Act 15USC(22)§1125(a)(1)(A) provides in relevant part: (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services . . . uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, which is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act. “The essential element in sustaining a claim under the Lanham Act is that the alleged infringement creates a likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers as to the source of the goods.” Whitney Info. Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC, No. 2:04-CV- 47FTM33, 2005 WL 1677256, at 4 (M.D. Fla. July 14, 2005) (quoting Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d 821, 831 (11th Cir. 1982)); see also Fisons Horticulture, Inc. v. Vigoro Indus., Inc., 30 F.3d 466, 473 (3d Cir. 1994).
17.
Author’s Guild Inc. v. Google Inc. No.
05-CV-8136 gave rise to allegations of copyright infringement before Judge
Spizzo of the US District Court Southern District of New York on 20 September
2005 under 17USC(1)§101
whereas Google Inc, had announced on 14 December 2004 that it had entered into
an agreement with University libraries to digitally scan books from the
collection so that users worldwide can search them in Google. The Author’s Guild, with over 8,000 members
is the nation’s largest organization of authors and several authors sought an
injunction in behalf of the class of published authors who should be notified
and awarded royalties before publishing their work on the Internet. Google responded that unless the copyright holder gives Google Inc.
permission to show more the copyright holder can exclude their books from the
program. HA on the other hand takes the
more liberal approach to the fair use of copyrights and Google Inc. may infer
that HA wishes for the 1,000 book of statute and other tables, manuscripts and
documents published at title24uscode.org to be made available for the public to
enjoy free of charge. Whereas HA holds absolutely no stock, shares in any
public or private corporation whatsoever HA has no conflicts of interests with
anyone, it would be nice for Google to both reinstate the HA website as the
first response for Google search strings of that name and exercise their option
to give the author one Google share in remedy for the infringement.
18. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 17USC(5)§512
sets new standards for remunerating authors whose work has been infringed upon
unethically so as to result in the removal or disabled access to a website who
Google Inc. has offered in their new Terms of Service offering to pay up to
$1,000 for every lawful claim of infringement, such as this one. Google Inc.’s 11,652,570 shares closed on Nasdaq at $459.67 a share +33.61 from the previous day (7.89%) at 04:00PM EDT on
20 October 2006 for total holdings of $5,356,300,000. Google reported revenues of $2.69 billion for the quarter ended September
30, 2006, an increase of 70% compared to the third quarter of 2005 and an
increase of 10% compared to the second quarter of 2006 in the Third
Quarter 2006 Results. Saul Hansell of the New York Time reported
on 3 March 2006 that the Google
market capitalization declaration of $111 billion, was misleading for a company
whose filing with SEC in 2005 was less than $6 billion. While initially lacking in scienter as a
proof for fraud the false claim to ownership Google’s claim to own the entire
world’s official development assistance was immediately in violation of the
Lanham Act whereas the statement was misleading to consumers. Whereas Google
then treacherously disabled access to the HA website from Google search engines
Google failed every test for infringement under the DMCA and case law but that
requiring the cost of copyright and copying of the Author’s Guild which HA
fails in affording any protection money but that of web hosting. The lesson for Google Inc., is that if
Google wishes to represent public contracts written by HA, as they are
encouraged to, without incurring legal consequences they must cite their source
and the people who would be served by the contract, in using their corporate
influence us to make press releases regarding new developments in HA work. For instance the Google Inc. declaration
should have informed the press something to the effect that, “Google Inc.
supports the new plan in the new Atlas by Hospitals & Asylums to levy
Official Development Assistance for the States of the United Nations and
recommends a gross aggregate supply of $111 billion this 2006 for the relief of
the 2 billion people living on less than $2 a day.” This would have been a true statement and HA and the UN would
have enjoyed a more peaceful and prosperous year.
19. Censorship is infringement that occurs when people falsely representing the author call for injunctive relief without so much as informing the author. When a domain is disabled or removed without the notification of the author both censorship and infringement have occurred and that domain should be reinstated the instant that it comes to notice. It is entirely up to law abiding authors as to whether or not they wish for their domains to be removed from public circulation for reasons of copyright. In regards to determining the lawfulness of a person’s work the accused is entitled to a written trial where he or she is confronted with their accusers and able to make a counter notification in which they can plead their case. HA is too large an organization for any policy but the freedom of information to be effective in regards to research published on the web, within the reasonable terms of fair use to mitigate the chaos stemming from infringement. As an advocate of human rights, public health and economics HA is not the likely target of legal censorship or injunctive relief in a fair trial however whereas HA balances both the federal and international budgets, frequently comes directly into conflict with bad money like treason, corruption and deficit spending and under Gresham’s law, bad money drives good money out of circulation, HA is frequently targeted by illegal censors who need to be censored themselves. Google must therefore know HA and protect the domain from such infringers, who demand removal or disability of the website, with a fair trial where the accusers can be countersued for corruption of the freedom of information. Making money is of course a primary objective of HA however whereas it is a political organization that aims to improve the health and welfare of all people copyright protection restricting circulation of the documents to paying readers is not the means of making money and it is hoped that state and corporate governments and unions of people like Google Inc. will pay for this free public service.
20. Google failed all four aspects of the Field test in regards to infringing upon HA. HA knew of Google’s $111 billion declaration and the fact that it was merely an expression of interest in arriving at a poetic number for the SUN does not clear it of breeching the Lanham Act whereas it was misleading to consumers. HA accepted this counsel and used it as total revenues for official development assistance. Whereas Google made no reference to HA or the UN in their declaration, much like Bank One on January 2004, it is supposed that Google was ignorant as to the real facts but was so interested in the concept conveyed by the intercepted information, that they acted irrationally. Most importantly for proving infringement under the Field test, Google, relied upon an estimate regarding the HA international atlas in making their $111 billion statement. Under the Parker test there are two elements to a successful claim of vicarious copyright infringement, the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted materials. Both of these factors are tolled in this case whereas Google made their expression of interest quite publicly for the scrutiny of the press and laid a false claim to the entire $111 billion of official development assistance earmarked for the world’s poorest people and furthermore there is a good chance that Google Inc. can be supervised now that they have amended their Terms of Service and made some employees responsible to the email. A civil claim in behalf of HA is clearly due however whereas the HA web domain is disabled by Google search engines HA finds itself unfairly disadvantaged to enforce this provision demanding compensation and is therefore asking that Google formally express their interest in the billions and trillions of dollars privately legislated by HA by giving HA one share of Google stock. This would be the only share that HA owns whereas Engel’s law states, the poor spend proportionally more of their money on food, it seems humorous to write that this one Google share would be the only money HA doesn’t eat.
21. This gift of one Google share would entitled Google to legitimate recognition by HA and if the interest would toll the $24 annual membership fee, membership under Art. 9 of the Constitution of Hospitals & Asylums Non Governmental Ethics (CHANGE). The right to write is explained in Article 2 whereby one should uphold the moral and material interests of the author under Art. 27(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948. It is generally permissible to make quotations or copies from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public under the doctrine of fair use whereby the author is entitled to a share if the infringer makes a considerable profit. The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886 whereupon the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) establishes the laws of the union in regards to intellectual property rights whereby authors of literary works shall enjoy the exclusive right of authorizing the public recitation of their works, including such public recitation by any means or process. The author, or after his death the persons or institutions authorized by legislation, shall, with respect to original works of art and original manuscripts of writers and composers, enjoy the inalienable right to an interest in any sale of the work. To be fair to Google Inc. in the constitutional fashion that HA has adopted it seems unlikely that Google Inc. made any money with their false statement nor did they suffer any punishment but the ridicule of the New York Times and were not harmed by their multiple exposures to the judiciary and in fact made extraordinary progress in their accessibility by email and in the amendment of their Terms of Service. It is however time for Google Inc. to devote their legal education to Congress and human rights and cease burdening the judiciary with mischief in order to get the attention of legal researchers. If Google Inc. wishes to fully enjoy the rights and privileges conferred by litigating HA, Google is directed to inspire legitimate research in Congress and the UN treaty bodies in hopes that the law of treaties would come to regulate the world wide web.
22. Making information technologies available to persons with
disabilities is not only a matter of human rights, it also makes good business
sense to UN Enable whose
theme is e-accessibility for this year’s International Day of Disabled
Persons on 3 December, this 2006, when the Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities HA-19-10-06. It is time that Google Inc. made HA
accessible to everyone again to redress the discrimination against the disabled
domain that occurred in the second and third quarter of 2006 when US economic
growth began slumping. Studies suggest
that blind accessible websites such as HA appear higher up the page rankings of
search engines and can save costs on web maintenance and increase revenues. A blind patent lawyer who subscribes to HA
through a friend owns a computer program that audibly reads HA emails and
webpages in standard formats such as provided by HA. The disabled equal with everyone else are entitled to fully enjoy
their rights and privileges to read HA.
To fight for their rights HA has incorporated several Google email
addresses into the email list for the quarterly HA journal on the equinox and
solstice, that is so public that it is not considered a subscription, unlike
the monthly subscription for volunteers and members, and should not give rise
to any conflicts of interest requiring notification and counter notification,
but HA is at the service of Google Inc. for the resolution of any such
conflicts or to provide free counsel in regards to the drafting of a treaty on
the World Wide Web. The entire
objective of this article is to permanently reinstate Hospitals & Asylums
at title24uscode.org as the first search string response for, “Hospitals &
Asylums” and grant Google the unreserved privilege to promote HA articles in
all relevant searches, free of charge.
It is hoped to maximize exposure of the literature at the HA website so
that everyone will laugh. HA is happy
to settle for the permanent Google first response for the search string
“Hospitals & Asylums”, as the immediate result of this email counter
notification that was served on 23 October 2006.
Letters of
support should be addressed to Google, Inc. Attention: Google Legal Support,
DMCA Counter Notification. 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043
OR fax to: (650) 963-3255
Questions
regarding HA and Google Inc. stock option may be addressed to Tony Sanders.
Hospitals & Asylums. 451 Ludlow Ave. #212. Clifton, Ohio 45220.
513-281-3029
Google Inc. apprequest@google.com,
press@google.com, security@google.com
Anthony J.
Sanders, Hospitals & Asylums, title24uscode@aol.com
Email is
preferred to such an extent that the printer was junked in 2004 to distance HA
from bioterrorism, costly judgments and spare some trees.