Friday, October 21, 2016

Google is Defending a Law Suit in Florida, E-Ventures vs. Google - Will Google Unfairly Censor This Article? Please Search for this Content on Google. Are Google Guidelines Deceptive?

The summary below is from a law suit Google is defending currently for manually removing websites so no one could see them via a Google search. Why did Google put this companies 232 websites back into Google only after they sued Google? If it really was spam as Google claims why did Google not leave the penalty on them?
I smell "Big Brother Google's" evil bullshit.  Please click below to read the Forbes article.
I found out from some of my attorney friends that Florida is one of the best places to file a case like this against Google. I am trying to figure out when the next court hearing is so I can follow this legal case on my blog. This is why the most talented SEO experts in the world have to keep all their websites secret from Google and not use the Google Search Console, because you cannot trust Google to treat you fairly and Google has demonstrated a long history of abusing SEO experts.

"GotoTom2 Search Console for Google to read."
The worst part of this for Google is that I have plenty of solid proof and evidence regarding moving content that Google manually unfairly penalized to other peoples websites. Once the previously inappropriately censored content is moved Google does not penalize it. Guess what Google you are caught red-handed.
Why would you not track this "spam" to other peoples websites and penalize it?
I can easily find it in under one second using a Google search.
Why would you ignore the terrible content being moved and instead focus on penalizing more content and websites of the "unfairly targeted owner"? Is it because your real intention is not to penalize "spam" and that the content was really not spam in the first place?
Why should the Google spam police even know who the owner of a website is if their job is to evaluate content fairly for all people?

At the minimum this looks very bad, and if it is not illegal we should pass new laws and regulations to make it illegal. What might be the next group Google may decide to target and inappropriately censor and punish?

I will also show you a website that Google has incorrectly penalized and I had to tell a young women writer, I am sorry Google unfairly censored your content so your Mother cannot search for it on Google. This is an example of pure evil in my opinion. The young lady writer cried about this situation. Google wants to inappropriately punish me, however they are just harming innocent people that write for me and some of them are single mothers trying to earn a living as a writer. is unfairly censored by Google for 6-months already, yet Google is okay with this web page and site:

It seems to me that the Google SPAM Police have the Wrong Priorities

Also if you look at thousands of websites like I do, you learn what Google might and perhaps should penalize. For example this site has poor quality content and you can see the only purpose is to do link building for a "go-cart track" in Chicago. Yet Google does not penalize this blog and there are more "spammy" webpages than this that Google does not penalize.
So it is clear to me when Google is abusing me and denying me my freedom of speech. I sincerely believe I could do a better job of cleaning up the Internet than Google can given the same financial resources.

Because of these facts, Google executive management should immediately forbid the Google Spam department from having any knowledge about website ownership. They do not need this information and clearly they have shown a pattern of abuse.
This would help with the above mentioned problems, Google will still make mistakes and penalize innocent people unfairly however then we could at least be assured Google is not inappropriately targeting, bullying, and incorrectly discriminating against a specific and targeted group of "operators of interest". 

I found other legal articles about this case, and since I am not an attorney it is important for me to read several different legal opinions about this case.