Category Archives: Business relations

articles pertaining to companies and worklife

P4P: Final Review

As you have probably figured out from the title, this is most likely the last article we are going to cover on this subject. While it is our goal to protect vulnerable families from those who may potentially cause them harm, we can only beat this dead horse so many times. For those who have followed our platform, you are most likely aware of the alleged “non-profit” organization, “P4P.” Punished 4 Protecting, which was founded by Francesca Amato-Banfield, is an organization that has been under fire for sometime now. The reasons for such scrutiny vary for many reasons. This article is going to cover, not only this questionable organization, but its founder as well.

Punished 4 Protecting

Punished 4 Protecting was founded in early 2018. While this alone has no merit, it does in that Francesca Amato claims to have been around for many years, that is the only claim she makes that is factual. According to Amato, P4P is a “non-profit” organization. As a matter of fact, the below image is one to which makes such claim.

70687609_10156117359077303_421226430769135616_n

As stated, she claims to be a “non-profit.” What exactly does that entail? To be classified as a non profit, an organization has to be a 501(c)3. Organizations of this nature are tax exempt. However, with “P4P” one simple issue arises; it’s not a 501(c)3.If anything, it would be a  501(c)4. This sort of organization is defined as, “an organization that is not geared for profit and operated exclusively to promote social welfare. However, her organization is neither of these. It is incorporated and as such, cannot be a 501(c)3 or 501(c)4, We covered this issue in one of the first articles regarding Francesca’s organization. You may read the article, Sorry: 501c3 not found. 

When looking at the “P4P” site, you will notice another contradiction. Looking at the name, it has one slight flaw that disproves it being a “non-profit.” The minor issue is simply “inc.” If that doesn’t sound like anything critical, it actually is. It is because an organization cannot be incorporated and be a non-profit; it is either a corporation, or a non-profit, it can’t be both. While this could be argued as a simple oversight, looking into the list of New York’s registered non-profit organizations, one organization is missing: Francesca’s.

The above image brings fourth another problem. In the same post, Francesca, the family advocate, actually threatens Ashley Cooper with CPS. Now, for an individual who is “bringing down the system,” wouldn’t this be a bit counter-productive to her cause? If anything, it does demonstrate what lengths Francesca is willing to go to silence anybody who opposes her. Given the dialogue, one can presume that Francesca is fully aware of who Ashley is. Though this is also useless by itself, it plays into something we will be covering shortly.

Francesca Amato-Banfield

As we have stated, Francesca is a woman that has been encircled with controversy since 2017. With a variety of articles and YouTube videos, she has been repeatedly accused of being a con-artist. Furthermore, there have been many accusations regarding her friendships with registered sex offenders. In recent times, she faced accusations of spreading “sovereign citizenship” ideologies. One such example, comes from early 2019. Francesca Amato, alongside her typical group of associates, had a “one cure fix all” affidavit. While they claimed this affidavit worked, no evidence has ever been produced to validate this claim.

70458054_10156117127127303_9187273085839998976_n

In the first image we presented, it is clear that Francesca seems to know about Ashley’s case. Furthermore, she alleges to know enough to even know who the caseworker. However, in this most recent image, she is seen asking, “Who are you?” and, “Again who are you?” This question is a complete 180 from the original image. How does one implicate to know about another’s case if they don’t even know who that individual is to begin with? The fact that a self proclaimed advocate would resort to, what is essentially a form of blackmail, to silence anybody who speaks out against her, has only added to the controversy surrounding her.

Francesca Amato-Banfield, as we can tell from our research, is not an advocate. The amount of controversy, damaging information provided by her, and various other forms of questionable deeds has many people raising a brow. If the controversy isn’t about her directly, it surrounds her associates. One example of such is David Jose who, according to many people, takes money from a victim and then proceeds to block them. As if that isn’t enough, photographic evidence shows him illegally withdrawing funds out of bank accounts.  If you intend to use an advocate to fight your case, do your research. Don’t just pick the first beautiful flower you see, it may be toxic.

 

Other related articles:

Secret “Congressional” meeting?

Jamie Johnson (documentary)

Infamous Jamie Johnson gun video (full version)

“Advocate” exploits sexual abuse victim

Illegal counciling services?

 

Advertisements

Secret “Congressional” meeting?

In the past, we have covered a group who allegedly scams families out of money. The families they often target are those fighting the CPS/DFS/DSS system. While this is already considered to be highly unethical, they appear to be completely oblivious to this. However, recently P4P’s (Punished 4 Protecting,) Francesca Amato-Banfield, David Jose, and a few others arranged a “congressional hearing.” According to the P4P team, they were going to be meeting with a few representatives of congress. During this time, they filmed a live video, which can be watched here.
This video brings up many questions. Among the questions:

1. Where are the representatives of Congress?
Notice, at no point during this video, are any of these alleged representatives seen. In fact, at no point do we ever actually hear them interact with the group in any form. If these representatives were truly there, wouldn’t they naturally be asking questions, or at minimum, conversating with the P4P team?
2.Where are the victims?
Now, these people had this “secret meeting” essentially on behalf of these CPS/DFS/DSS victims. So, with that in mind, where are the victims?

Francesca Amato-Banfield isn’t unfamiliar with being “exposed” online for her scams. Going onto YouTube, and even Google search, typing in her name will reveal videos, and articles, dating back to 2017. Another aspect of Amato that has, upon many occasions, concerned online advocates, is her past friendships with convicted pedophiles. You can find an article relating to this here. We could go deeper into this woman, however, we already have previous articles covering her and her affiliates.

The video, which was the alleged “congressional meeting,” is highly suspect. Not only have the online activists torn it apart, some of P4P’s own allies are beginning to question it. An actual attorney, Connie Reguli whom we have previously covered, came forward to “The Watchman’s” Randy Davis, and began discussing further questionable aspects of this meeting. The video, in its entirety, maybe watched here.

While the P4P team continues to make rather radical claims, none with actual documentation, it is apparent that people are beginning to see the pattern for what it is: A scam. On many occasions Francesca Amato has pushed for funding. Rather it be through her “self published” book, or with her controversial “consultations,” she exploits vulnerable families for all they are worth. Most of these families are unable to afford an attorney, they are desperate, looking for some form of hope. For a, what Amato claims to be a 501(c)3 (also proven to be false,) this truly brings a rather shady view toward her ethics. Regardless of your opinions of her, or the most recent video, we simply end this article with this: The evidence speaks for itself.

Facebook Pedophile group causes outrage

Update:

Just a little over an hour ago, the group mentioned within this article, was taken down by Facebook.

 

More and more, we are seeing groups utilize, and even exploit flaws within the social media giant. Because of this, many of these groups have been allowed, regardless of its content; the group, to which we are exposing, is no different. Recently, what appears to be a pedophilic had been brought to light. Naturally, the group, “Hayden Summerall & jade weber Mc” has placed many activists into a fit of rage. The wall, while clearly displaying innapropriate images of young, non nude girls, is the primary reason behind the outrage. From nearly nude photos, to sexually suggestive poses, young children are portrayed in a variety of positions. While activists are very much offended and upset, Facebook has already displayed, in the past, an unwillingness to remove pages containing content such as this. This only raises further alarms as to how Facebook will choose to implicate, if at all, their “community standards” policies.

In the past, groups that had clearly violated the policies Facebook claims to uphold, had managed to slip through the cracks. Meanwhile, independent media platforms, CPS groups, and a variety of activism groups had been deleted, often with no explanation from Facebook. Furthermore, the administrators would often find themselves in “Facebook jail” post deleting of the groups. One such example of this occured with the former media platform, “The Daily Haze.” This was a platform, near the end, that couldn’t seem to evade the scope of Facebook’s selective policy enforcement, often times leading it’s journalist, Meko Haze, blocked from his primary account.

Questions as to rather or not Facebook will actually uphold its policies are currently pending. Once we learn the fate, if any, of this group, we will post the update to this article. However, for now, it is a literal standoff between activists and a diabolical group of individuals who actively, and openly, prowl the social media site. Stay tuned.

Arkansas company owner bullies mentally challenged employee (autistic man shares his story with us)

UPDATE:

In the short time since this article has been released, the company, to which we wrote about, has become aware. According to the individual, who initially reached out for help, they are demanding that he remove all the “slander.” We spoke to a well known advocate. At the time that most of the events unfolded, he had apparantly reached out to her for help. During this time, she confirmed that the owner, who’s name is now known, called the former employee a “stupid fat ass.”

Though we did reach out, via Google review, we have yet to get a response from the company owner. Given his rather questionable statement to us (photo below article,) we have more than enough evidence to believe that he is, in fact, a bully. With that, this article will NOT come down.

Editor’s notation: regardless of the implied threat (photograph below,) the business owner has no legal grounds to authorize any videos or photographs posted to this site. If you don’t like the fame, don’t target disabled people, mate.

Workplace bullying is not new. In fact, it’s a rather large problem. As with any form of trash, we happily attack this problem. About an hour ago, our team obtained a video. While the video was clearly a mobile device in a pocket, the audio was what caught our attention. The video cannot be posted at this time as the individual has expressed a desire to take the situation to court.

The situation apparantly began early in the morning, when the mentally challenged (who requested to remain anonymous) was awaken to a knock. He was told that he would be relocated to another vehicle. He explained to us that he was upset as it was the fourth time within three weeks that he was forced to move. However, what ensued can only be described as horrid. The audio, according to the former employee, is the owner of Karr Transportation (KTTI.) Shortly after the audio begins, the owner is heard saying, “I have delt with stupid motherfuckers like you in the past…” The audio becomes fuzzy after this point.

Within the audio multiple insults are thrown at the employee. “Stupid fat mother fucker,” “stupid fat fuck,” and the list continues. Now, what makes this situation particulary horrible is the fact the employee suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism, the owner of the company was apparantly made aware of this during the assault. “I don’t give a fuck what you are,” was allegedly his response.

Allegedly, the employee attempted to go into the workplace, as the company left him stranded 300+ miles from home. At this point, the owner began a second round of assaults. However, according to the former employee, there was a moment to which the owner walked up to him in a threatning manner. The employee, fearing for his safety, stood up to the would-be bully. At this point, the verbal assault continued, for the second time.

Not only is this bullying, this falls into so many legal grounds. We looked up the company, left a review in attempt to make contact with the owner. The response he gave simply placed blame on the former employee. In retrospect, insulting employees with disabilities is acceptable work ethic. We looked at his various replies to other reviews and found a theme of sarcasm and lack of empathy.

Bullying of a handicapped person is not just unethical, it’s an outrage. Handicapped people, for some, are seen as weak and vulnerable; clearly that is the case with his former employer. However, this handicapped person knew of our platform, took the chance to contact us, and now we have relayed his story. If you are being bullied, we can be your voice as well.

The response from the owner is rather interesting. An implied threat, perhaps?

Facebook Wars: The attack on Freedom

Sometime ago, we wrote another article pertaining to Facebook and it’s apparent war on media. To some regard, this is a bit of a follow-up article to that. Since the time of our previous article, Facebook has not only continued it’s unjust attack against independent media platforms, it appears to have increased the attack. The most common reason given for any platform being removed, “X post has violated our Community Standards.” So, seeing that posted by so many, we decided to take a look at their community standards. What we ultimately found, was a policy purposefully written to be extremely vague. Even with the vague writings, it remained obvious that Facebook, was in fact, in violation of their own policy. This article is going to break the policies, to which we believe are being implicated, down for everybody.

Community Standards: Section III Part 11: Hate Speech.

Below are a couple of paragraphs from the “Hate Speech” section of their Community Standards. For those of us, who have been on Facebook for awhile now, we have seen this policy broken by the Social Media giant countless times. How? Let’s review it:

We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics — race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, caste, sex, gender, gender identity, and serious disease or disability. We also provide some protections for immigration status. We define attack as violent or dehumanizing speech, statements of inferiority, or calls for exclusion or segregation. We separate attacks into three tiers of severity, as described below.

Sometimes people share content containing someone else’s hate speech for the purpose of raising awareness or educating others. In some cases, words or terms that might otherwise violate our standards are used self-referentially or in an empowering way. People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it. Where the intention is unclear, we may remove the content.”

In the past, we have seen cases to which Facebook removed hate speech. However, we have also seen them outright ignore it. The first paragraph is very important in that it informs you as to what they define as hate speech. The contradiction, however, comes within the second paragraph; specifically, these sentences:

People sometimes express contempt in the context of a romantic break-up. Other times, they use gender-exclusive language to control membership in a health or positive support group, such as a breastfeeding group for women only. In all of these cases, we allow the content but expect people to clearly indicate their intent, which helps us better understand why they shared it.”

Now, if you’re like me, chances are you have shared something along these lines; you shared something to bring awareness to the initial form of hate speech. In the case of me doing it, for example, Facebook banned my account for 30 days while leaving the post I was exposing up. In fact, according to Facebook, the original post was not in violation.

But the bulls-eye on the independent journalist doesn’t end there. Another area, to which Facebook has targeted journalists is:

Part IV: Integrity and Authenticity: Section 16: Spam

We work hard to limit the spread of commercial spam to prevent false advertising, fraud, and security breaches, all of which detract from people’s ability to share and connect. We do not allow people to use misleading or inaccurate information to collect likes, followers, or shares.”

This policy, as a whole, is highly questionable. Not only is it extremely vague, it leaves to many doors open, one door is a rather new policy of theirs, however we will get into that later. This policy has literally made it so that it’s up for interpretation as to what “spam” is. You get a media platform, for example, that posts often on a specific arena, Facebook could potentially remove that platform utilizing the claim that they are “spamming” the site. In fact, they could go as far as to state they are spamming the site with “hate speech.” this one paragraph has, in the past, raised questions. And seeing that this is all Facebook has written within this section, it’s obvious as to why.

While section 17 is also one for concern, let’s skip to the section that is really important within Part IV.

Section 18: Fake News

Reducing the spread of false news on Facebook is a responsibility that we take seriously. We also recognize that this is a challenging and sensitive issue. We want to help people stay informed without stifling productive public discourse. There is also a fine line between false news and satire or opinion. For these reasons, we don’t remove false news from Facebook but instead, significantly reduce its distribution by showing it lower in the News Feed.”

Now this policy has, to some regard, affected War on Corruption. The problem here lies beyond what Facebook is claiming, this one goes into “Freedom of Speech” and “censorship.” the problem with this policy, like so many, is it’s extremely vague. Furthermore, this policy raises many questions regarding Facebook’s stance on constitutional rights and liberties. According to Facebook, they wish to maintain a “safe environment.” However, it seems they also wish to silence any platform that attempts to conduct legitimate journalism. Because of how this policy is written, it can essentially be translated to say, “We, at Facebook, intend to impede any media platform that politically opposes our ideology.” At least this wording is more accurate.

Facebook literally has a novel sized section of policies. Like the above mentioned, most of their policies are extremely vague and left for individual interpretation. One thing that is not vague, however, is how Facebook utilizes the vagueness of these policies. Due to the way they are written, it has given Facebook a back-door into enforcing them when, and how, they see fit. Because of this, multiple platforms within the past year have suffered; the most recent platform within the long list, “The Daily Haze” (TDH.) It is apparent that Facebook conducts a malicious form of censorship, silencing anybody who opposes them. The solution? The only solution is to simply find another Social media site.

Illegal counciling services?

It seems, as of late, that we are in the business of exposing people. Rather it’s a group of advicates pretending to be that-advocates, a group who placed families in danger by allowing a convicted pedophile into their group, or this lady…we seem to be busy.

Recently, we had been contacted by Melissa MacDonald, a member of team “Revitup.” She contacted us about a potential scammer, Lisa Michaele Walker-Mcmillan (Michaele Mcmillan.) Mcmillan operates several groups within Facebook. Among them, “Wounded Hero Project.” The group, according to the image below, is essentially claiming to be a counciling center. Now, as we all know, to make such a claim, one must be licensed in the field.

Although we had no reason to doubt Melissa’s claim, we make a habit of going in with a skeptical eye. With this, we contacted the page. We simply asked for verification of the clege they attended as well as a photo of their certification. If provided, this article would had given them some problicity. Well, clearly that is not how things went.

After waiting for about an hour, Mcmillan did respond. The response was simply, “hello Melissa.” I explained who I was, what I was doing, and even offered to call. Although it showed that the messages were read, no reply was ever given. With that, we felt that we had enough information to proceed with an article.

We conducted a search, one in Arkansas as well as Kansas, to verify rather or not her organization was legit. Because, in one image, we saw LLC on the name, we began there. To not much of a suprise, no such LLC existed in either state. We than conducted a 501c3 and 501c4 search. Both had the same results: No such organization existed.

We went to the group’s Facebook page and decided to pull the provided phone number. If this was a legitimate counciling service than the number should be in its name. What we found was the phone number was operating on the AT&T network and it was Mcmillan’s personal cell.

This was more than enough for us to write this article. What we have here is a woman who is illegally providing a counciling service to veterans. She has no legit business, no certification in the field to which she provides service for, and no legit phone number to her artificial business.

While her intent might be good, we say this with much hesitation, the facts don’t lie:

1. She is not trained to handle PTSD, depression, anxiety, and the many other issues that vets face.

2. She is operating an illegal counciling center, under the radar of the State medical board.

3. When questioned, she simply avoids the subject. People do this when they know they have been busted.

4. What she is doing is not helpful, cute, or funny. She is targeting a group of people who, in many cases, are vulnerable. These people are often fighting suicidal depression and thoughts. To play doctor, or councilor, is not something we should take lightly.

We had conducted this research with an open mind. Because Mcmillan refused to answer one simple question, it has lead us to believe that she is a complete fraud as well as a threat to those who feel vulnerable. Below, we will show the entire conversation. We are doing this for accountability. If we provide it, she cannot say that we omitted her response from this article.

War on Media

If you have been on Facebook recently, chances are you have noticed several media platforms that have gone silent. CopBlock, Free thought project, The anti-media are just a few to have been taken down by the infamous Facebook company.

Although surprising, we honestly can’t be shocked by this move. With a history of privacy issues, constitutional violations, and censorship concerns, Facebook steps the bar up once again. The first move made by the company was the option to report “fake news.” While this may seem harmless, it gave Facebook the ability to remove any platform that went against its own political agendas; naturally, we see police accountability and independent platforms removed.

For the platforms that still remain, this should be revered as a serious concern. After all, the pages taken down had millions of followers, where most of us don’t. It is no longer a question of “if” Facebook will take us down, but when?

Because of this concern, “WoC” has already began making plans. Being that we often shared postings from the now removed platforms, we know that being under the radar is impossible. We have simply covered to many controversial areas. Rather it be police brutality, CPS, corrupt courts, and even went toe-to-toe with a very questionable 501c3, it is likely that we will be removed soon.

But what of Facebook? What will happen to it enlight of these actions? Already people have began leaving the site. Independent Social Medias have began to boom because of Facebook. The flaw with Facebook is ot relies on advertising to make money. Basically, they sell your information, use your information on your profile, to direct ads to you. Well, less people means less ads and equals to less money.

What Facebook has failed to realize is if everybody suddenly left their site, the company would literally go bankrupt. In a huge way, the masses have more control than what Zuckerberg is willing to admit.

The Facebook commentary

Anybody who has ever heard of the infamous social media site, Facebook, is probably already aware of the numerous contraversies surrounding it. With this in mind, we shouldn’t be all to surprised that the site has been violating privacy laws in its collection of personal data.

As you maybe aware, or not, anything you post to Facebook is considered fair game. So, that boyfriend/girlfriend breaking up with you post…don’t be surprised when you start getting ads for dating sites. Now, that collection of information is not what we are here to discuss.

If you go to your account settings, there is an option to download a copy of what Facebook has collected on you. Upon doing this, I found that they had more information than what they legally should have. Text messages, my phone contacts, etc. are just a couple of things they had stolen from my personal phone. So, is collecting this information legal? No.

In order for law enforcement to obtain this information, they must first get a warrant. To get a warrant, they must have probable cause. Now, because Facebook is not law enforcement, they cannot obtain a warrant. However, they can conduct internal investigations if you are employed with them. So what does this have to say about their collection information on you?

Your text messages, your contact list, who you called, the duration of said call, etc., Facebook obtained in violation of Federal privacy laws. Because they cannot obtain a warrant, shrouded their collection in secrecy, and made no attempt to inform people, we now see the newest hashtag, #DeleteFacebook.

With this hashtag trending, it does make us wonder rather or not Facebook has finally come to its end. Although, there will always be people associated with the Social media site, alternative sites have taken this oppurtunity to grow their user bases. Given the extensive, and yet, contraversial history of Facebook, leaving the mega site may not be a bad idea.

Facebook: war on innocence

If you have been on Facebook for any length of time, chances are you already know that they optionally enforce their policies. And why not? They are the biggest social media platform on Earth. Not a big deal, right? Wrong!

Because of the random enforcement of their policies, numerous crimes are conducted via their platform daily. While some of these crimes are minor, some are very serious crimes. Just to name a few: drug trade, human trafficking, child pornography, bullying, and various forms of terrorism.

While drug trading is a crime, it isn’t one worth discussing in this article. However, we are going to discuss human trafficking and child pornography together. The reason we are combining them is purely due to how they relate.

If you search around on Facebook long enough, eventually you may come across some “kiddie” groups or profiles. Often times these groups are closed, some are secret, but once in awhile you find an open group. 

Over the years I have come across hundreds of these groups. I did what any rational person should do, I reported it to Facebook. So, I did a great deed, I helped some family whos’  children were being preyed on. But, Facebook actually allowed the group to remain.

And so, because Facebook is so poorly operated, this message is what you will get. However, this doesn’t happen to just groups, this also applies to other victims.

Another area to which we see the piss poor operations of Facebook, is in the harassment/bullying arena. In many cases, you get the standard “we aren’t doing anything about it” message. In other cases, we have seen the bully report the victims’ profile successfully; this sends a huge message. This message is simply: 

If you break the law while using Facebook, don’t worry, we are on your side. However, if you are a victim, you are not subject to be protected while on our site.

Regardless of the proven, and yet dangerous effects this has, Facebook remains selective on how its policies are enforced.

The reason is simple, however. Facebook makes X amount of dollars per profile/page. So, the more they have, the more money they make. In theory, the more money you make Facebook via posts, pics, etc., the less likely they are to enforce policy on you. Simply put, they want you to make revenue for them.

With the rising of social medias such as “MeWe” and “empowr,” it is very plausible that Facebook will soon have a run for its money. That, however, does not phase them. For right now, the mega giant continues its poor enforcement and management of its policies.

Popular pet product fails customer

We have all heard the stories, somebody buys a pet product, it fails, and the company refuses to stand by their guarantees of refunding the product. Well, this is sorta like that.

The popular manufacturing company, “Out!” Is the company we will be discussing. Recently, a young couple bought the ever so popular, urine removal product (pictured below.) However, they never expected the turmoil that would soon unfold.

Upon following the directions and applying the product onto their pet’s urine, they discovered that the product actually did more harm than good. While it did remove the urine, it also destroyed the carpet (pictured below,) clogged their vaccuum, and rendered it innoperable.

However, it was the company’s response to this that has lead them to be on “WoC.” When confronted, the company stated that the customer was at fault for the damages. Although, the young couple followed their directions, they were at fault?

I took the time to visit with the couple, who were obvious upset. They told me that they originally only wanted a refund for the product. However, now they are wanting the company to pay for the repairs of their vaccuum and carpet.

I also took time to look at the damages, needless to say, I will not be buying their product anytime soon. The bottomline to this is fairly simple. When a company produces a product and that product fails, it is more ethical to address the customer’s concerns. So far, this company, based on various emails, has dragged the situation out for more than a week. Who is in the right? What do you think?