TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

GOOGLE CORPORATION THREATENS small island nation: EITHER DO WHAT WE WANT or WE CUT GOOGLE SERVICE OFF to the detriment of your citizens

DID THE DEFENDANT GOOGLE with the participation of MICROSOFT and YAHOOthreaten the REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS to accept their racketeering scheme by the means of a threat or did they bribe the labile judiciary, or was it a bit of both?

Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands

GOOGLE CORPORATION HAS MORE EMPLOYEES THAN THE MARSHALL ISLANDS HAS INHABITANTS

GOOGLE EARNS MORE MONEY IN ONE DAY THAN IS THE ENTIRE ANNUAL BUDGED OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

This paper is based as all the previous papers on facts and evidence in public documents. It deals with the question whether mega corporations like GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO (and others) can be curbed and controlled by enacted law or whether these corporations wield such financial power that they can bind governments including the USA to their knees and elevate themselves above the law, whether state law, international law, and covenants and pledges by the US government.

That corporations like GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, YAHOO and other such have so much influence that they in fact can direct the US Congress to tailor to their need a law that gives them the freedom to earn money through libelous actions.

US Congress' holy cow: INTERNET ADVERTISNG CORPORATIONS

US Congress considers the internet advertising corporations as their holy cows, who no doubt give milk to politicians in plenty to have such laws enacted that excerpt them from liabilities, while other advertising agencies continue to be under the strictures of the law. On behalf of these internet advertising corporations, US Congress enacted in 1996 the 47 U.S.C. 230 that virtually permits internet advertising agencies to publish libel per se without being liable, and where the whole liability rests with the content provider. In consequence and because of this exception from liability US Congress created a whole new criminal society that makes it their business to destroy people and their business over the internet by the simple means of advertising libel per se, which then is disseminated all over the world and remains on the internet forever. Members of such a criminal society use this tool to exhort money from shop owners and corporation owners with the threat if they do not pay up, an advertisement will be placed against them. The good old times where hoodlums beat up shop owners if they did not pay protection money have disappeared forever. Nowadays, and since the creation of 47 U.S. C. 230, criminals can elegantly avail themselves of GOOGLE Ad-word, the advertising services of MICROSOFT, and YAHOO, to either destroy or soften up their victims.

What in fact US Congress did was to remove the unalienable right of US citizens to security of their person and free access to the courts. What does access to the courts mean if one cannot seek redress for injury because the perpetrators of an injury are above the law? That internationally, citizens of other countries suffer likewise, does not concern US Congress, these are aliens anyway.

GOOGLE'S THREAT TO THE MARSHALL ISLANDS of which MICROSOFT and YAHOO availed themselves too

The Background based on factual evidence in public documents: In 2006, an American citizen contracted in the Marshall Islands with a corporation a lease and the construction of a beach house, and requested from the corporation to be its sole real estate broker globally for the remaining real estate. The corporation and the American citizen signed contracts. The American citizen wired to the corporation in the Marshall Islands the first annual lease payment and partial construction costs as per contract. About 2 months later, the manager of the corporation, after reading his advertisement, contacted him by e-mail with the request to tone down his advertisement that promised far more than the corporation could deliver. Instead of doing so, the broker informed the manager, that he did not care to work under such conditions. Moreover, he demanded from the manager of the corporation to pay him back privately in 48 hours the funds he had wired to the corporation under his contractual obligations, adding the threat if the money was not with him in within 48 hours, he would publish an advertisement adverse to the corporation. The manager replied, asking him to set forth his demands in a registered letter to the corporation and consult a lawyer because he was by now in breach of all his contracts. The American citizen did neither, instead he availed himself of GOOGLE Ad-word and published an entirely false libel per se and trade libel advertisement out of thin air that almost at once started to destroy a flourishing business up to then. In within 2 months, the business was destroyed, because GOOGLE published the advertisement and MICROSOFT and YAHOO had the headlines with a link to it. The manager wrote to GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO attaching copies of all contracts and the blackmailing e-mail that revealed unequivocally that the corporation was blackmailed with the help of ADWORD. Neither GOOGLE, nor MICROSOFT and YAHOO reacted. Meanwhile, the American citizen wrote another e-mail to the manager in which he gloated that the advertisement did destroy the corporation's business, and offered again to remove it upon payment. Again, the manager wrote to GOOGLE, MICRSOFT and YAHOO, this time attaching a copy of the e-mail from the American citizen. Again, neither corporation reacted.

Thereafter, in 2009, the manager and spouse named in the trade libel and libel per se advertisement, amended their complaint for libel per se against the American citizen and former broker and by Order of the High Court added the corporations GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO as defendants, serving them by letter with return receipt. The case is a Marshall Islands High Court Case, CA 2008-016 and 2008-017 [consolidated]. The CEO's returned receipt, service was complete.

DEFENDANT GOOGLE'S THREAT TO THE MARSHALL ISLANDS: BLACKOUT OF INTERNET ACCESS TO ITS SITE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH GOOGLE'S DEMANDS

Defendant Googles, MICROSOFT and Yahoos LEGAL POSITION at the time of the commencement of the action in the Marshall Islands:

The case was filed in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a sovereign country that had not adopted the 47 U.S.C. 230, wherefore under the laws of the RMI, the defendants were liable for trade libel and libel per se.

However, even if the RMI had adopted the 47 U.S.C. 230, the defendants were still liable because they separately had received information concerning the libelous and trade libel content of the advertisement, and had further received the second information that the content provider of the advertisement was committing a extorting cuber stalking and harassment.

In addition to that, GOOGLE, in its own advertising policy in Ad-word, forbids and prohibits libelous content against private persons.

The plaintiffs in the RMI had a good cause of action and all the evidence necessary to hold the defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO liable. Because of this fact, the corporate lawyers of GOOGLE would not appear pro hac vice in the Marshall Islands and defend a case that was not defendable. Nor could they find another pro hac vice lawyer from the United States who would soil his hands for GOOGLE corporate lawyers and the scheme they had thought up. Defendant GOOGLE however found Attorney David Strauss, an US citizen and resident of the Marshall Islands who was not squemish. He carried the from the GOOGLE attorneyes deviced scheme out.

The scheme involved two stages:

In the first stage, Attorney David Strauss on behalf of defendant GOOGLE, as evidenced on page 2 in his inappropriate Motion to dismiss from October 2, 2009, threatened the Republic of the Marshall Islands with a Internet Blackout in the the RMI if the High Court did not ex post facto adopt U.S.C. 47, 230 (which would have been in gross violation of the RMI Constitution, Article II, Section 8) and in the second stage, Attorney David Strauss explained the meaning of the threat of the Internet Blackout to the civil population of the Marshall Islands in full, but promised on behalf of the defendant GOOGLE, that if the High Court illegally adopted without legislation an ex post facto law beneficial to GOOGLE, that GOOGLE would ensure further development of the great benefits of the Internet within the Marshall Islands:

Attorney David Strauss' Motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant GOOGLE, page 2, Oct. 2, 2009

and:

Attorney David Strauss' Motion to dismiss on behalf of defendant GOOGLE, page 13, Oct. 2, 2009

Allegedly, the High Court, respective the judge, chief justice Carl B. Ingram, not only took the threat of the Internet Blackout to heart, he must have been on the receiving end of further developments of great benefits. From 2009 onwards, resident Attorneys Strauss, who obligingly dirtied his hands in favor of the corporate lawyers of GOOGLE, jointly with resident Attorney Vitousek, who gladly participated in the threat and the promised great benefits for the defendants MICROSOFT and YAHOO, racketeered jointly with chief justice Ingram in Civil Case 2008-016 and 017 [consolidated] in a manner that boggles the mind. Because of these facts, documented and evidenced, the plaintiffs in this case, filed on February 4, 2011 against the defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO jointly with chief justice Ingram of the RMI High Court a verified complaint and supporting affidavit for ABUSE OF PROCESS AND TRESPASS ON THE CASE.

It is presumed that defendant Googles threat of a Internet Blackout must have shaken the Marshallese Cabinet so much that it did not dare to demur when the then Attorney General, U.S. Citizen Frederick Canavor from Seattle, foisted US District Judge John C. Coughenour, the personal judge of the defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO, as the single candidate upon the Cabinet to hear the forthcoming case CA 2011-022.

The result of this travesty of court proceedings is set forth under:https://www.academia.edu/8326222/Defendants_GOOGLE_MICROSOFT_and_YAHOO_BRING_THEIR_OWN_JUDGE_TO_THE_MARSHALL_ISLANDS

In summary: US corporations GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO1Defendants MICROSOFT and YAHOO did not demur but reaped the benefits of defendant Googles threats

, after having become defendants in a case for Libel per se and trade libel in the sovereign Republic of the Marshall Islands, threaten the Marshall Islands with an INTERNET BLACKOUT if the High Court does not illegally adopt U.S.C. 47, 230, an undertaking impossible for the High Court; even the Nitijela if threatened into such adoption could not circumvent the Constitution, Article II, Section 8, Ex Post Facto laws. Jointly with the threat, Attorney Strauss promised great benefits if the High Court complies. The chief justice of the High Court did not adopt U.S.C. 47, 230, but instead racketeered with the legally unauthorized resident lawyers Strauss and Vitousek. When plaintiffs, who appeared pro se, were not the easy push overs, the defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO, jointly with the presiding judge chief justice Ingram devised a new scheme. They invented their own rules and laws and jointly held the plaintiffs in involuntary servitude by illegal legal process to work for their scheme.

After two years of illegal proceedings in the High Court, plaintiffs filed a verified complaint and supporting affidavit for Abuse of Process and Trespass on the Case against the defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, YAHOO and chief justice Ingram, CA 2011-022. Having meanwhile taken the measure of the plaintiffs, the defendants found it necessary to devise a new scheme. They brought in their own judge, District Judge John C. Coughenour of the District Court Seattle, Western District, in which court the case of the High Court of the Marshall Islands for Abuse of Process and Trespass on the Case is filed under the CA No. 2009-047. Swiftly, from his court house in Seattle, US District Judge John C. Coughenour dispossessed the plaintiffs in the Marshall Islands over the telephone of their acquired property right of Entry of Default against defendant GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO.

Their judge acted again. Even though the case had been terminated, he dismissed it for lack of jurisdition as evidenced on page 10 and 12 in his Order from August 4, 2011, but on page 13, now claiming conveniently to have jurisdiction, he granted the attorneys' motion to declare plaintiffs vexatious litigants. And this illegally without hearing and without competent fact witnesses, thus prohibiting plaintiffs in future access to all courts in the Marshall Islands!

ipso facto:

The defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO, US corporate citizens threatened a foreign nation and its judiciary

The defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO allegedly bribed foreign government officials

The defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO violated the sovereignty of the Republic of the Marshall Islands by forcing upon the Marshall Islands their own judge from Seattle, District Judge John C. Coughenour

The defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO racketeered jointly with the chief justice of the High Court Ingram to defeat the true course of justice and deprive the opposite litigants, the plaintiffs of their civil rights

The defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO jointly with US District Judge John C. Coughenour of the District Court Seattle, Western District, devised in the United States a racketeering scheme that they carried out in violation of the sovereignty of another country in part in the United States and in part in the Marshall Islands in order to avoid a Judgment in Default and prevent the litigants in the Marshall Islands from further lawsuit against them.

THESE ACTS ARE PUNISHABLE UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME (UNTOC)

The United States of America are a member State of UNTOC since October 30, 2006. As a member it must safeguard (and punish) the prevention of corruption, especially in such a particularly critical area of the public sector as the judiciary, and Article 5 of the Convention enjoins each State Party to establish and promote effective practices aimed at the prevention of corruption.

Threatening a foreign nation, violating the sovereignty of a foreign nation, bribing government officials of a foreign nation, devising racketeering schemes in the United States to be carried out in part in the District Court Seattle, Western District (CA No. 2009-047) in the United States and in part in a foreign country, namely the Marshall Islands, moreover, arranging that foreign citizens in a foreign country are denied further access to their courts are not only RICO crimes that are prosecuted under US law, but these multiple crimes of the corporations GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO jointly with an US District Judge and US citizen in the Marshall Islands, namely the lawyers Strauss and Vitousek and chief justice Carl B. Ingram must be prosecuted under the UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME (Organized Crime Convention).

The UNTOC contains a definition of organized criminal group in Article 2 (a) :

a group of three or more persons that was not randomly formed;The group of GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, YAHOO, US District Judge John C. Coughenour, US citizen and attorney David Strauss, US citizen and attorney Roy Vitousek and US citizen and chief justice of the Marshall Islands were a group of 7 persons formed with intention

existing for a period of time;Group 1 in Civil Court Case 2008-016 and 017[consolidated] contained the corporate persons GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, YAHOO, the US citizens and lawyers David Strauss and Roy Vitousek, and the US citizen Carl B. Ingram, chief justice of the Marshall Islands High Court, the group existed from September 2009 until June 2013Group 2 in Civil Court Case 2011-022 contained the corporate persons GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, YAHOO, US District Court Judge John C. Coughenour, US citizen and lawyers David Strauss and Roy Vitousek, and US citizen Carl B. Ingram, chief justice of the Marshall Islands High Court , the group existed from February 2011 until August 2011.

acting in concert with the aim of committing at least one crime punishable by at least four years' incarceration;In both groups these persons acted in concert to and did agree to make

threats to create an INTERNET BLACKOUT, 18 U.S. Code 878 - Threats and extortion against foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons provides for punishment of 5 and more years

promised great benefits if the Marshall Islands High Court would illegally adopt as an unlegislated Ex Post Facto law U.S.C. 47, 230, 18 U.S. Code 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses provides for punishment up to 15 years

in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit.Both groups in both cases acted in concert in order to avoid in CA 2008-016 and 017[consolidated] and CA 2011-022 (filed also illegally under the filing system of the US District Court Seattle Western District as CA No. 2009-047) Judgment in Default after lawful Entry of Default, and to dispossess in both cases the plaintiffs of their right to free access of the courts in the Marshall Islands, in order to hinder them to seek further redress for injuries by the defendants GOOGLE, MICROSOFT and YAHOO.

Under the UNTOC, the United States of America are bound to observe, apply and prosecute offenses committed by organized criminal group of GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, YAHOO, US District Court Judge John C. Coughenour, US citizen and lawyers David Strauss and Roy Vitousek, and US citizen Carl B. Ingram, chief justice of the Marshall Islands High Court

these applicable laws under the UNTOC govern the case:

Article 3. Scope of application1. This Convention shall apply, in accordance with its terms, to theprevention, investigation and prosecution of corruption and to the freezing,seizure, confiscation and return of the proceeds of offenses established inaccordance with this Convention.

Article 4. Protection of sovereignty1. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under this Conventionin a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorialintegrity of States and that of non-intervention in the domestic affairs ofother States.2. Nothing in this Convention shall entitle a State Party to undertake inthe territory of another State the exercise of jurisdiction and performance offunctions that are reserved exclusively for the authorities of that other State byits domestic law.

Article 15. Bribery of national public officialsEach State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may benecessary to establish as criminal offenses, when committed intentionally:

(a) The promise, offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly,of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties

(b) The solicitation or acceptance by a public official, directly or indirectly,of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity,in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties.

Article 16. Bribery of foreign public officials and officialsof public international organizations

Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as

may be necessary to establish as criminal offense, when committed intentionally, the promise, offering or giving to a foreign public official or an official of a public international organization, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage, for the official himself or herself oranother person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from actingin the exercise of his or her official duties,in order to obtain or retain business or other undue advantagein relation to the conduct of international business

Article 26. Liability of legal persons1. Each State Party shall adopt such measures as may be necessary,consistent with its legal principles, to establish the liability of legal persons forparticipation in the offenses established in accordance with this Convention.2. Subject to the legal principles of the State Party, the liability of legalpersons may be criminal, civil or administrative.3. Such liability shall be without prejudice to the criminal liability of thenatural persons who have committed the offences.4. Each State Party shall, in particular, ensure that legal personsheld liable in accordance with this article are subject to effective, proportionateand dissuasive criminal or non-criminal sanctions, including monetarysanctions.

Article 30. Prosecution, adjudication and sanctions1. Each State Party shall make the commission of an offence establishedin accordance with this Convention liable to sanctions that take into accountthe gravity of that offence.

2. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary toestablish or maintain, in accordance with its legal system and constitutionalprinciples, an appropriate balance between any immunities or jurisdictionalprivileges accorded to its public officials for the performance of their functions and the possibility, when necessary, of effectively investigating, prosecuting andadjudicating offences established in accordance with this Convention.

Therefore, and for the above membership of the United States in UTOC and the relevant laws governing the case, it was inappropriate that the United States Attorney General responded to the victims, the plaintiffs in the Marshall Islands, that his office did not have jurisdiction to investigate the alleged crimes and advised to address the Office for Judicial Accountability. Needless to say, that the victims did not receive even an acknowledgment of their letter. A protection and cover up of US citizens' and US government officials against victims that are considered aliens is shocking bigotry and a violation of the UTOC.