Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Google Confirms It Aims to Own Your Online ID + Attorneys for Google, Inc. failed to produce licenses to practice law in California
Private Attorney General COMMENTS Re: Google Confirms It Aims to Own Your Online ID
+ Attorneys for Google, Inc. failed to produce licenses to practice law in CaliforniaAn army of white collar traitors have invaded California:
Cf. Attorneys for Google, Inc.:
Aaron Chase achase@...
Dimitrios Drivas ddrivas@...
John Handy jhandy@...
Warren Heit wheit@... (see below)
Scott Johnson scott.johnson@...
Shannon Jost shannon.jost@...
Kevin McGann kmcgann@...
Wendi Schepler wschepler@... (see below)
Theresa Wang theresa.wang@...
Our preliminary investigation of Attorneys for Google, Inc. now follows:
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/google.inc/drummond.david/nad.certificate.htm (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/google.inc/elkhunovich.oleg/nad.certificate.htm (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/google.inc/heit.warren/nad.certificate.htm (PAST DUE)
http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/google.inc/schepler.wendi/nad.certificate.htm (PAST DUE)
See VERIFIED CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, ON INFORMATION here:
[begin quote]List of pertinent authorities now follows:Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 73 (1932) (“attorneys are officers of the court”); Malautea v. Suzuki Motor Co., 987 F.2d 1536, 1546 (11th Cir 1993) (“All attorneys, as officers of the court ....”); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 1995) (see section “II.”); “Let Us Be Officers of the Court,” by Hon. Marvin E. Aspen, 83 ABA Journal 94 (1997); and FRCP Rule 1, Advisory Committee Notes, 1993 Amendments (“as officers of the court, attorneys share ....”) [bold emphasis added]
Additional pertinent authorities are elaborated in detail here:
Pertinent California State laws are here:
P.S. Said "ATTORNeys" are so notified hereby.
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964(a)
Criminal Investigator and Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm (Support Policy)
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)
All Rights Reserved without PrejudiceOn Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:44 AM, william wrote:--I do NOT TRUST google...I am switching to START PAGE.....bill-------Original Message-------From: To: Subject: Google Confirms It Aims to Own Your Online ID
GOOGLE, YAHOO, FACEBOOK ARE ANTI-AMERICAN PIGS!
THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOUR RIGHT OF PRIVACY. WHY SHOULD THEY IF YOU DON'T?
Look around the table. If you don't see a sucker, get up, because you're the sucker.
Amarillo SlimAug 31 07:55By: malterwitty
Tags:Ever since Google launched its new Google+ social network, we and others have pointed out that the search giant clearly has more in mind than just providing a nice place for people to share photos of their pets. For one thing, Google needs to tap into the “social signals” that people provide through networks such as Facebook so it can improve its search results. There’s a larger motive, too: As Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer Eric Schmidt admitted during an interview in Edinburgh over the weekend, Google is taking a hard line on the real-name issue because it sees Google+ as an “identity service” or platform on which it can build other products.
-- CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 3527. The law helps the vigilant, before those who sleep on their rights. "A statute does not trump the Constitution." People v. Ortiz, (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th at p. 292, fn. 2 Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 163 A statutory privilege cannot override a defendant's constitutional right. People v. Reber, (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d. 523 [223 Cal.Rptr. 139}; Vela v. Superior Ct, 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921], however, "the judiciary has a solemn obligation to insure that the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial is realized. If that right would be thwarted by enforcement of a statute, the state ...must yield." Vela v. Superior Ct., 208 Cal.App.3d. 141 [255 Cal.Rptr. 921 Obviously, administrative agencies, like police officers must obey the Constitution and may not deprive persons of constitutional rights. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. v. Public Utilities Com., 18 Cal.3d 308 [S.F. No. 23217. Supreme Court of California. November 23, 1976.] If evidence of a fact is clear, positive, uncontradicted and of such nature it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the court must instruct that fact has been established as a matter of law. Roberts v. Del Monte Properties Co., 111 CA2d. 69 (1952) If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers. Thomas Pynchon They will do whatever we let them get away with. Joseph Heller