The featured image of this article is borrowed from .


Search engines are not mind readers. Search engines can only do with what they have. If they have something they can use it to establish a base from which to find relational sources to complete the query response. If a search engine does not have something it cannot make up what is relevant to it. Unless that search engine DOES have a source and has been instructed NOT TO SHOW THAT SOURCE. Deja Vu!   All over again! Google was supposed to have STOPPED censoring the case. Well, now… they are censoring this blog. Again.

We just completed about a year and three quarters of Google censoring our legal case and the 9th Circuit Court of appeals. Click this to learn about it:

So did Google actually comply with the Federal Government and STOP censoring the case?

First let us check this site’s presence for the name Garland Shreves. Mr. Shreves is NOT a party to any of these legal matters. That we know of. But then again the court won’t show us the outcome of the cases. Yet.

There is only one result on this site (as of this writing there will be two when this publishes).


So how did the search engines treat the publication of that article?

Let’s start with searching for the majority of the title “who is garland shreves and why is he moonlighting”.

DuckDuckGo found that article (posted yesterday) and ONLY that article… logically searching for the boolean quote means just that document. Good for Duckduckgo!

So how about Bing? Same query!

BING! has the article and admits it right up front. Same as Duckduckgo except BING! goes a step further and actually finishes the search for the proper name included. But nothing else worth finding. How could it? Quotes are very specific!

But then there’s GOOGLE. The text search results are below, but let us take a look at the images results because the Google algorithm for display of images results includes a similar component. Before something can be similar it has to be known to the system. But Google is swearing on its digits that they never heard of that article but they can find all of the stuff on the site it is published at including all of the similar relevant names and search queries but not the one article that could tell them where it is. Lookee….

  • lee kent
  • turner
  • clerk
  • google
  • radio
  • court
  • pinal county
  • volkmer
  • arizona
  • superior court
  • amanda stanford

When revisiting the images page again the list of suggestions changed to:

  • clinical advisor
  • biological resource
  • arizona
  • marathon
  • cme
  • hempfling
  • broker
  • court
  • volkmer
  • lando voyles
  • county
  • body donation
  • bomb
  • donor
  • kent hempfling
  • phoenix

How on earth ( or elsewhere for that matter ) can Google know that Garland Shreves is connected to the cases on this site?

How it is that a search engine that swears on its reputation (don’t go there) that it never heard of the article seems to know everything there is to know about the site it is on. Even though the proper name is only on the site one time and the actual article is HIDDEN FROM VIEW. That is censorship in the FACE of the 9th Circuit Court and obviously the FBI as well.

So Google with text find images for the topic and apparently quite a few articles on this site not related to Shreves at all:


GOOGLE IS AT IT AGAIN! So .. when the court FINALLY PUBLISHES ALL OF THE CASES they will not be committing 1st Amendment violations for the opinions of the court AGAIN. (Appropriately because that would have been entrapment!) They don’t have to. GOOGLE continues censoring both the case and now the name of the Chief of Staff of the Pinal County Arizona Attorneys Office seems to have been missed when they stopped the censorship.

Can we say: Get in line Google. Next!

p.s.: if anyone is going to attempt to attack a search result evaluation container here for any reason whatsoever, remember: I program that garbage and I know how the search engine, spider, indexer, filters, and especially the illegal vigilante copyright service from Lumen Database works.

And now with this article the search results on this site updated:

Gee, should I say I knew it.  Nah.



* Images are screen shots from September 1, 2019 .