UNCOVERING THE SECRET GOOGLE WORLD OF CORRUPT SEARCH CENSORSHIP

GOOGLE ANTITRUST INVESTIGATION?

WHAT IS IT ABOUT?

When a newspaper gets it so wrong it has to be included: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/technology/tech-giants-antitrust-law.html

You have no idea what Google IS DOING.

You are about to learn.

Before we discover the method, means and opportunity of Google and its SEARCH CENSORSHIP FOR SALE campaign, let us start with some history.

Reputation management is getting a bum rap, but most importantly reputation management is being thrown under a very large bus [1].

Lumen Database. Ever hear of it? Most have not but you will. In fact, you will hear a great deal about this organization and that requires knowledge to be armed and not gullible.

Lumen Database started with Wendy Seltzer in San Fransisco in 2001 as “Chilling Effects“. Imagine that name using the meaning: Chilling Effects = Chilling: Horrifying (scare, frighten, petrify, terrify, alarm[2]) : Effects: [3] = results of the same. But the name Chilling Effects does have context [5].

“In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction.[5] The right that is most often described as being suppressed by a chilling effect is the US constitutional right to free speech. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit; any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill.[6] A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or more commonly, a “SLAPP suit”.[4]

“Chilling” in this context normally implies an undesirable slowing. Outside the legal context in common usage; any coercion or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can be statistically measured or be plainly observed. For example, the news headline “Flood insurance [price] spikes have chilling effect on some home sales,” and the abstract title of a two-part survey of 160 college students involved in dating relationships: “The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships.” [4]

IN OTHER WORDS: Chilling Effects (Now Lumen Database) was formed to inhibit or discourage the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. That name was obviously too obvious: so they changed it.

“To enforce his copyright, a copyright owner may file a lawsuit in federal court, alleging infringement by a defendant. In court, the copyright holder must prove that his copyright is valid and that the defendant’s actions infringed upon his statutory rights. In a civil lawsuit, enforcement of a copyright entails injunctive relief and monetary compensation. This means that a court can order the offending party to stop using the copyrighted material, and also order that party to pay the copyright owner.” [12] But this does not matter to the Internet, does it? Yes it does!

The WHOLE REASON Lumen Database was created was to SELECTIVELY STOP THE EXERCISE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THROUGH LEGAL FORCE. Problem is: there is no such legal force at play.

Lumen Database is similar to a repository of prohibited locations, phrases, words, titles, etc… reported by… reported by… wait… Lumen wants you to believe the reported by function is a thing controlled by disgruntled writers and authors trying to protect their copyrights. Lumen then instructs its subscribers to ignore the Internet URI locations it has entered as violating a copyright which means they disappear from search in Google. Problem there: is that NO PRIVATE ORGANIZATION can enforce copyright law [12]. Lumen is usurping the power of the United States COURTS.

Unlike parody sites, this Lumen monstrosity is serious in their quest to not only control what you can access on the Internet (run by the chief counset of the organization responsible for the Internet, as a side job no less!) but the very existence of such a repository begs the question: who’s watching the censors as they violate the 1st Amendment Constitutional Rights of every person they have arbitrarily ruled is violating a copyright. A FAKE COURT RUN BY THE CHIEF COUNSEL OF THE INTERNET ITSELF. The U.S. is concerned about censorship on social media and search. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

Just over a year ago, after it became known in a confined set of legal circles that Lumen was nailed to criminal activity: Lumen sounded the alarm about their ‘product’ (which all of a sudden becomes a victim) and perceived ‘scams’ to cause bona-fide content to be blocked from search results by misusing their product. Let them state the case[1]: They call it the “stolen article” scam.

“A company (or individual) will come across some undesirable content online, which they believe will cause them reputational harm. Desperate to censor the content at any cost, and lacking a valid case for defamation, they will often seek the assistance of a “reputation management” agency. These agencies will proceed to create a website masquerading as a legitimate news source, whose sole purpose is to host the very content their client is seeking to remove, usually disguised in the form of a news article. The article is then backdated to give it the appearance of being published prior to the allegedly infringing content. The reputation management agency then files a DMCA notice on behalf of the “journalist” who wrote the review, claiming it was stolen from their client’s website, all the while shielding the true client’s name with an alias designed to make it difficult to trace back to them.” [1]

Lumen wants the background information available to give a defense that appears to be long before the indictments happen. This whole explanation gives one the impression that authors and reporters use the Lumen Service to become a vigilante mob to control Internet search results. Obviously they do. But they are not all that do.

That brings us back to Wendy Seltzer.

“Wendy Seltzer is an American attorney and a staff member at the World Wide Web Consortium.[8] She was previously with Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy. Seltzer is also a Fellow with Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, where she founded and leads the Lumen clearinghouse, which is aimed at helping Internet users to understand their rights in response to cease-and-desist threats related to intellectual property and other legal demands.[9]

Seltzer sits on the board of directors of the World Wide Web Foundation.[8] A former At-large Liaison to the ICANN board of directors,[10] she has advocated for increased transparency of the organization of, and for increased protection of, the privacy of Internet users.[9]

Previously, she was a visiting assistant professor at the Northeastern University School of Law and Brooklyn Law School, and a fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.,[5] and served on the board of directors of the Tor Project.[6] Before that, she was a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, specializing in intellectual property and free speech issues.” … “Previously, she was a staff attorney with online civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, specializing in intellectual property and First Amendment issues, and a litigator with Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel.”[9]

We should compare the two incarnations of Lumen:

Started as Chilling Effects: inhibit or discourage the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. I.e.: be a force to control knowledge on the premise that such control is helping the poor copyright owners’ rights.

Now it is Lumen Database: a vigilante organization run by the chief counsel of the organization that controls the Internet; who’s chief purpose is to enforce United States Copyright Law, outside of the law. But that is not all it is being used for. As evidenced by the actions of what is now Lumen Database, “Internet users to understand their rights in response to cease-and-desist threats related to intellectual property and other legal demands” is the furthest from reality any mission statement could be. And as illegal as it can be, acting like a final court of law for the entire globe without a single legal authority. Like Google itself, a close ally to Lumen Database, and politicians in Arizona: Lumen says one thing and does another.

“The Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG) law, which came into force in October, requires social media websites to remove “fake news” and “hate speech” or risk fines of up to 50 million euros (40 million pounds).
While intended to stop the spread of disinformation and hateful rhetoric online, recently published “local law” complaints show that would-be censors are using NetzDG to target all variety of content, including mainstream news stories, sexual words and images, an anti-Nazi online forum, and criticism of German Chancellor Angela Merkel and of the NetzDG law itself.
That’s according to the Lumen Database, which archives online takedown requests.
Anti-NetzDG campaign: “Think ban on criticism”
German author Martin Hilpert was among the first to be targeted for allegedly committing “criminal offences” under NetzDG.
On his Google Plus profile, Hilpert has published dozens of posts criticising Chancellor Merkel’s immigration policies and calling for her immediate dismissal.
In October, Google received a request to remove “problematic” content from Hilpert’s account on the basis that his political views allegedly constitute “hate speech or political extremism” under NetzDG.
He’s not the only one in the cross hairs.” [13]

If the reader harbors any doubt as to what Lumen Database is really up to just read this: https://shootingthemessenger.blog/tag/lumen-database/ [13]

Who uses Google to use Lumen Database? Authors? Politicians? What if we found out who used the Google-Lumen copyright cabal and we learned who had traded favors or cash for favors in Google’s search results? Inside the United States and Outside the United States. What if you KNEW who a person was and he was local in that list? What if you may have voted for that person?

Google is using Lumen Database to go one step further. Normally one can search Lumen itself and find what is blocking a page. The infraction here is in Lumen hiding what is blocking a page and reporting the copyright violation to be for published material not even in the same universe as the blocked URL.

As of June 9, 2018: Searching for the title of the appeals court case : Lee Hempfling Suesie Hempfling vs. Kent Volkmer Et Al, resulted in active censorship in Google.

After finding 8,250 results for that search query, Google only includes three references to that case. But how many of them are there really? Not to be outdone by that,

Google has completely blocked search results to PinalCOSC.us and PinalCountyJustice.Com. Censorship at the direction of a STATE GOVERNMENT.

Bing, in the same search, results in 30,500,000 document links. The entire first page of 10 is taken up with the case directly.

Try the search query in any search utility that does not get its feed from Google and you will find, GOOGLE IS CENSORING CITIZENS AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AT

THE DIRECTION OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA.

What could the motive be for someone to enter into an evil pact with the Google Monster? We have to go back to March 2, 2017 for that…

129 Results? Of course, Google has totally blocked any search results for the case itself in the 9^th Circuit Unpublished Opinions page.

The question arises then does Google index ANY cases on that unpublished opinions page?

The case does exist in that unpublished page on December 26, 2017. Did anything that became indexed by Google show up? These are the case memorandums released by the court AND THE SAME THREE JUDGE PANEL as the Hempfling case.

INGLEWOOD WOMAN’S CLUB, INC. V.	17-60053	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	BAP, Tucson Bankruptcy Ct	Bankruptcy	12/26/2017
JUAN DURRUTHY V. MTC FINANCIAL, INC.	17-55512	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	San Diego District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
GREGORY FRANKLIN V. J. JIMENEZ	17-55470	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	San Diego District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY V. LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION	17-55405	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Los Angeles District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
VICTORIA KALDAWI V. THE STATE OF KUWAIT	17-55389	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Los Angeles District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
NIKI-ALEXANDER SHETTY V. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON	17-55342	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Los Angeles District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
KENNETH GHARIB V. THOMAS CASEY	17-55270	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Santa Ana District Court	Bankruptcy	12/26/2017
RAPHEAL RUSSELL V. MYONG MUELLER	17-35697	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Seattle District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
GLENN WILSON V. OREGON YOUTH AUTHORITY	17-35175	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Eugene District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
PHILLIP ALEXANDER V. PAUL BROWN FARMERS INSURANCE	17-16741	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Las Vegas District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
MATTHEW CORZINE V. ADAM LAXALT	17-16605	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Reno District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
KEVIN FERNANDEZ V. ISIDRO BACA	17-16525	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Reno District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
NICHOLAS PATRICK V. PETROFF	17-16428	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Fresno District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
LEE HEMPFLING V. KENT VOLKMER	17-16329	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Phoenix District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
KENNETH QUANSAH, JR. V. DEL CORONADO APARTMENTS	17-16244	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	San Jose District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
NICHOLAS PATRICK V. REYNAGA	17-16243	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Fresno District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
CAROL THOMAS V. SF COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT	17-15766	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Oakland District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
GREGORY JONES V. THERESA SCHRODER	17-15605	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Tucson District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
ANTHONY MERRICK V. CHARLES RYAN	17-15558	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Phoenix District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
RONALD WILLIAMS V. NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING CO	17-15152	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Las Vegas District Court	Civil	12/26/2017
REYNALDO MARQUES V. JAMES JOSEPH	16-60095	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	BAP, Santa Ana Bankruptcy Ct	Bankruptcy	12/26/2017
MINON MILLER V. EDWARD GILLIAM	16-60087	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	BAP, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Ct	Bankruptcy	12/26/2017
STEPHEN LAW V. EZRA BRUTZKUS GUBNER LLP	16-60041	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	BAP, Los Angeles Bankruptcy Ct	Bankruptcy	12/26/2017
ANTHONY MANRIQUE V. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION	16-56799	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Riverside District Court	Bankruptcy	12/26/2017
DAVID TURNER, JR. V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO	16-55446	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	San Diego District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
OSSIE SLAUGHTER V. JEFFREY UTTECHT	16-35947	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Richland District Court	Prisoner	12/26/2017
RICK GREER V. GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC	15-35691	Wallace, Silverman and Bybee	Tacoma District Court	Civil	12/26/2017

Let’s try a few in Google:

The case NICHOLAS PATRICK V. PETROFF is listed above the Hempfling case and although it is found in the GPO a listing is not available in two search results for the CDN server.

The case after our case is KENNETH QUANSAH, JR. V. DEL CORONADO APARTMENTS and it results in the same as the above case.

So let’s spot check randomly. DAVID TURNER, JR. V. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

Way down at #16 is the Court’s Unpublished page.

So…. Google did get them. Not the Hempfling case.

How about bing?

Now check for an actual party to the Hempfling case. Just the last name Brnovich.

So what is Google doing with Lumen?

Google wants you to go here: https://transparencyreport.google.com/copyright/overview?hl=en but you will not find any ‘hidden’ search censorship blocking there.

More on this fiasco of stolen rights and deception to follow.