Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Dori Contreras of the 13th Court of Appeals in Texas regarding a matter of public concern surrounding Richard Galvan.
CEO’s of G5 Internet Services Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan seem to be paying for articles. Why would they do this? If you understand anything about SEO (Search Engine Optimization) it’s a very simple answer. The more content, the more likely your chances are to rank up in google/yahoo/bing, etc. Why would they be doing this now? Well, that answer is also simple- because they probably don’t want the opinion from the 13th Court of Appeals to be easily searchable. Fortunately, no matter how many companies they hire and pay, this website is getting an average of 300 views a month. It would be almost impossible for it to be outranked, no matter how much Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan would like it to be. Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan should have thought about reputation management prior to his 2007 sexual assault of a teenage girl.
Article showing “paid content”Another article from “accesswire” clearly showing a firm has been paid to flood the internet with generic articles.
Richard Galvan has also appeared to have purchased the rights to a domain with his name. It’s a simple tactic with SEO to hire a reputation management company.
The 13th Court of Appeals Opinion written by Chief Justice Dori Contreras was released in October of 2019. Multiple legal websites posted it (which you can find here) and with an easy search on Google you could find it just by typing the names of the parties involved. After a few months they began disappearing from Google Search one by one, until they couldn’t be found. Assuming this was done at the request of The Galvan’s, this website was created to ensure the public has free and easy access to the public information. Over the last month there have been multiple articles (like the one below) posted regarding Richard and Sonia Galvan and their company G5 Internet Services. The Galvan’s have assumingely hired a company for reputation management (which they discussed in their depositions), as well as have seemingly attempted to get the opinion of the court ranking lower on Google and harder to find through a simple search. There are blog posts being released almost daily (all of which say generically the same thing, and written in a way to boost SEO). Clearly, this is an attempt to try and bury the court opinion.
The opinion from the court is that thisWAS and REMAINS a matter of public concern. The public has the right to know about Richard Galvan’s prior sexual misconduct, assault, and he and Sonia Galvan’s attempt to sue the victim into silence, despite how much they would like for it to be hidden by paying for generic articles which seem to be written by themselves (or from writers in Kenya).
Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan appeared to have hired a company for reputation management. Generic article from a paid company hired by Richard and Sonia GalvanAnother Generic paid article “As engaged members of the community, Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan support local, state, and international non-profit organizations. Most recently, they showed support for a battered women’s shelter in Nicaragua. They have served on numerous boards, directed local events, and sponsored many local activities. Sonia Galvan has served as a board member for Pregnancy Testing Center, a local, non-profit center for women that are pregnant. Richard Galvan has served as vice president for the City of Mercedes Economic Development Corporation for six years, FCA, and president for his local country club, and, until the pandemic hit, served on a cohort to build a new joint educational facility with Harlingen ISD and the University of Texas RGV.” Contributor Paul Wafula Paul Wafula is a serial entrepreneur who has founded multiple successful businesses in the field of writing, content marketing, web design and also SEO. Ever since graduating from the University of Nairobi, in Kenya, content marketing and writing has been one thing that Paul has been passionate about and now help’s entrepreneurs and businesses alike get their story heard across the world.
All of these news articles were taken by screenshot off of the internet. During the pendency of the lawsuit filed by Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan against the Crews’s, the articles have mysteriously and interestingly been removed. These articles provide evidence that Richard Galvan and Sonia Galvan seemingly tampered with the articles to have them removed and pulled off of the internet while also committing perjury in their depositions by denying under oath that they were ever youth pastors.
Valley Morning Star Nov 2007Valley Morning Star Nov 2007The Brownsville Herald Nov 2007
Sexual Assault in the church is rampant. Predators like Richard Galvan are attracted to positions in the church due to the easy access to young people, as well as the “forgiving” nature of most religious people. There is a great article written by a former FBI agent Joe Navarro regarding this very thing.
There was no dispute or objection from Richard Galvan or Sonia Galvan that they were ministers at their church youth group. Therefore the complained of communication was “a communication made in connection with a matter of public concern,” and thus, an exercise of Blaine Crews’ right of free speech.
Here, Blaine communicated that: Richard had sex with Hannah when she was seventeen years old and prior to her senior year of high school; Richard was her youth minister and pastor; Richard Galvan sexually seduced Hannah under the pretense of spiritual healing; Richard offered Hannah help to heal spiritually and emotionally after her break up with her high school boyfriend; and Richard told Hannah she was entrusting him to help her heal by giving him her virginity. Under the Texas Penal Code, a sexual assault occurs if “the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.011(b)(10) (defining sexual assault by a clergyman)
A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:
(1)
the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by the use of physical force, violence, or coercion;
(2)
the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against the other person or to cause harm to the other person, and the other person believes that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat;
(3)
the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unconscious or physically unable to resist;
(4)
the actor knows that as a result of mental disease or defect the other person is at the time of the sexual assault incapable either of appraising the nature of the act or of resisting it;
(5)
the other person has not consented and the actor knows the other person is unaware that the sexual assault is occurring;
(6)
the actor has intentionally impaired the other persons power to appraise or control the other persons conduct by administering any substance without the other persons knowledge;
(7)
the actor compels the other person to submit or participate by threatening to use force or violence against any person, and the other person believes that the actor has the ability to execute the threat;
(8)
the actor is a public servant who coerces the other person to submit or participate;
(9)
the actor is a mental health services provider or a health care services provider who causes the other person, who is a patient or former patient of the actor, to submit or participate by exploiting the other persons emotional dependency on the actor;
(10)
the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other persons emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergymans professional character as spiritual adviser;
(11)
the actor is an employee of a facility where the other person is a resident, unless the employee and resident are formally or informally married to each other under Chapter 2 (Child in Relation to the Family), Family Code; or
(12)
the actor is a health care services provider who, in the course of performing an assisted reproduction procedure on the other person, uses human reproductive material from a donor knowing that the other person has not expressly consented to the use of material from that donor.
