Category Archives: internet safety

Exposure pages/groups: Legit or is it harassment?

In the field of journalism, regardless of the sort of platform you operate, you can expect that somebody will, at one point, challenge your information. Earlier tonight, a page calling themselves, the “Victim’s Rights Advocacy Group,” had made a video to which they target a few individuals. However, within the video, they make a claim that was found to be questionable. Doing what we do, one of our admins challenged the claim. The claim was against the girlfriend of journalist, Meko Haze, Paige Adrian Chapman. Though the accusation, in itself wasn’t much, it accused her of being a “traitor.” At this point, our admin asked to see the evidence.

“There are many sources of information that can be easily looked up. You can do your own homework and catch up. But if you insist we would be more than happy to do a “Traitors Caught Red-Handed” video.”

The above is a portion of the reply given to our admin upon challenging the claim against Meko’s girlfriend, Paige. If so much “information” exists, as the administrator claims, than why was it so difficult to simply provide the said “information?” In normal circumstances, it isn’t. However, it is much harder to produce information that doesn’t exist than it is to provide something that does. With this response, the agenda of this specific page became clear. At the end of the statement, the admin makes mention of creating another “video.” It is presumed, based on the overall context, that they would, in some way, include either our admin or the overall platform. We will use this time to make the following statement:

“You may create any video you wish, your 253 followers may enjoy it. However, if you wish to include War on Corruption, please bear in mind, that we are a much larger platform, on multiple sites. If you do create a video, by all means, let’s see some of this alleged evidence you were so unwilling to provide.”

A key point to know is if a platform is posting factual information, providing documentation isn’t a problem. At this point, however, the group’s owner, became aggressive, and proceeded to ban the individual prior to deleting comments. While that may not seem like a “big deal,” it actually sheds a lot of doubt into the credibility of her page. However, this isn’t the first time we’ve seen this sort of irrational behavior. Another group, “Un-blessed BIG Liars, Frauds, and Fakes” has displayed similar behaviors. But are groups like this actually legal?

Legal Issues?

Exposing an individual for malicious, illegal, or unethical deeds is one thing. However, looking into these groups, they go well beyond simply exposing an individual’s wrongful deeds; in fact, they borderline harass whoever they are after. So who makes this list? From what we can tell, it’s anybody who simply pisses the page owners off. While we have exposed some of the nonsense from Jamie, Fran, David, etc. we have always left it to specific situations. Beyond those situations, we have made a point of not hammering them. The pages in question, however, make a point of constantly harassing individuals they target, this is where the harassment aspect begins to form.

According to the dictionary, harassment is defined as,aggressive pressure or intimidation.” According to pacer.org, cyber harassment can include:

  1. electronic forms of contact
  2. an aggressive act
  3. intent
  4. repetition
  5. harm to the target

Over the years, I have seen many pages like this. They have three things in common.

  1. They rack up a few followers.
  2. They begin targeting individuals, groups, or pages.
  3. And finally, they seem to eventually phase out.

While we aren’t fond of some of the people mentioned on pages such as this, we are even less fond of blatently harassing, stalking, and bullying an individual. At some point, one must pull the ethics card. For groups like this, we have decided to do that very thing. We have seen personal information such as home addresses blasted into groups like this, what exactly is that exposing? If anything, information such as this can potentially place somebody into a dangerous situation; this is not “exposure.” This is outright digital stalking, and WoC is standing up against this behavior.

Advertisements

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?

 

Oklahoma man exposed live

The internet is a place that should be taken with caution, especially for children. Between the various scams, bullies, and even predators, children have much to be alert to. For some of these predators, however, they’re game is over before it even begins. One such case, is a man named Andrew Weaver of Midwest City, Oklahoma.

Before we get into the “meat” of the story, let’s first discuss who Andrew Weaver is. Weaver is a local man living in Midwest City. From what we were able to find, prior to his Facebook page being deleted, he works at a dairy facility called “Braum’s, allegedly as a manager. He has a wife and at least one daughter. This last fact makes this story all the more disturbing. War on Corruption has, at this point, attempted to make contact with his workplace. If we receive a response, we will update the article. Weaver was not available for comment as we have no method of contacting him. If, by some chance he sees this article, we would love to get a statement from him.

Weaver, recently was exposed by the Oklahoma group, “Oklahoma predator prevention,” when he appeared at a movie theatre in attempt to pick up whom he presumed to be a 15y.o girl. In the video, which can be viewed here. The video begins in the parking lot of the local theatre. Within minutes, Weaver is seen walking away from the group, “OPP” as they attempt to engage contact. However, the confrontation is short lived.

Weaver makes a dash to his car, where he quickly gets in, and makes a speeding dash away from the scene. Eventually, after several insults at Weaver’s expense, and rightfully so, the group is able to make phone contact with him. As they begin asking him questions, we learn a few more things about Andrew; the most damning being the fact he himself was allegedly a child victim. While this is no excuse for his actions, it does demonstrate a common knowledge: people who are victims as children, have a higher chance of being a predator as an adult.

At this time it is unclear as to rather or not the police have been contacted. However, given several indications within the video, it is presumed that the group did not make any contact. With that said, they also mention to Weaver that several officers do follow their page. To this regard, should we get any updates, they will be posted here. As for Andrew, his future has yet to be determined. In retrospect, however, we do wonder how those around him will feel once they learn of his recent fame.

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.

Super “Starr”

When we released the article on Francesca Amato, it was only logical that we would, in time, write this article. Looking into the self proclaimed “advocate,” Jamie “Starr” Johnson. While Jamie isn’t as popular as some of the others, she is equally, if not more, diabolical than the Fran club.

Jamie, while it isn’t confirmed to us, appears to have gotten her name known through a specific case. The mother, Nikki (lastname omitted) had a child who was hospitalized. We are going to spare the details as that isn’t prudent for this article. We may cover that at a later time, only with the mother’s consent. To make a long story short, while the child was dying in the hospital, Jamie made multiple videos to which she exploited the situation. Bear in mind, that nobody related to the child had knowledge of this until much later.

In time, the child did pass. Jamie retreated to the hospital grounds, just outside the hospital. Again, without the family’s knowledge or permission, a livestream was made. During the video, Jamie, without consent, had announced the untimely death. Naturally, this created a rather large rift between Nikki and herself. The exploitation didn’t end there, however. While the mother begged her former “advocate” friend to cease, Jamie continued to exploit the death, all while Nikki publically demanded that she stop. From this point forward, Jamie’s shattered legacy spirals downward.

Contraversy involving the self proclaimed advocate doesn’t end there, however. Recently, there have been several images discovered pertaining to the “super starr.” While taking seductive images is not a crime, it has many people asking, “should a family adcocate act in this manner?” The answer is simply, “NO.” When proclaiming to be a family/child advocate, there are certain expectations that one must uphold. For example, an off duty officer posts racially driven statements, they are suspended. While Jamie defends the images, it has risen much concern regarding her advocasy. However, we will let the evidence speak for itself. At the end of this article, we have attached some of the images.

Jamie has caught even more attention. In a recent livestream, in which Rudy Orr and Randy Davis seem to make amends, Jamie went on the offensive. Among words of encouragement, Jamie began a vicious attack against Mr. Davis. During this assault, one of our own began to challenge her. He asked, on several occasions, for evidence to support her claims. Among her claims were: stalking, harassment, and slander. As of the time we wrote this article, Jamie has still failed to provide any evidence.

Following the assault, Randy and Rudy conducted another livestream, openly inviting Jamie to partake. They are heard repeatedly questioning rather or not Jamie would appear to present her evidence. Jamie did not. In fact, while they were doing the livestream, she had apparantly been commenting in the initial post, containing her assault. As far as we can tell, she has no evidence to present and thus avoided any subject to which she is called out.

If this is what an advocate is, I truly feel for any family who are desperate. Before choosing an advocate, look into them. It is strongly suggested that you not only check into them criminally, but morally, afterall it’s your children who depend on you to make the correct choices. We are going to assist in the moral department. Here is your potential advocate.

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.

Cyber terrorist smear campaign

We recently did a brief review of a man named John Anderson. John Anderson is a self proclaimed “pedo hunter,” a man claiming to expose pedophiles. However, it appears he does a bit more than that. When not getting his way, he begins to slander the reputations of his targets. Sound a bit familiar? It should as I myself had a similar situation in 2017.

Currently, Anderson is facing charges for making threats against multiple people online, namely death threats. In a video, posted in 2018, Anderson lists off people that he intended to kill for various reasons. Though he claims the arrest was a way to expose pedophiles, it sheds light onto his mental instability.

As I said, this is a very familiar smear campaign. We looked into the accusations made. The only portion that could be confirmed, is in regards to John Aster. Upon research, we found that there is, in fact, a John Aster on the Australian registry. However, how Meko would be “endorsing” Aster has yet to be seen; it seems to be nothing more tha a slander claim.

We made a post regarding Anderson on the WoC page. It didn’t take long for us to figure out how these people operate. Essentially, if you say anything against him, you are supporting, or endorsing, a pedophile. Below is a photo demonstrating this.

As with Meko of “The Daily Haze,” we are also accused of promoting John Aster. Keep in mind that we had no knowledge of who John Aster was, muchless ever speak to him. Because we had no clue as to who Aster was, we challenged the claim…no response was ever given.

As I said, Anderson is facing charges for making countless threats to people online… A lot of people, might I add. Anderson, is clearly unstable, as shown in a suicide video.

In this video, Anderson had apparantly called the police due to him wanting to commit suicide. When they show up, however, rather than talking to them, he goes on the offensive and begans to attack the police. At this point, we essentially ruled the video as attention whoring. It was very obvious that he had no intention of actually performing the act, he just wanted the police to show up.

So why are they attacking a journalist? From what we can tell, Anderson’s wife attempted to make contact with Meko some months back, Meko never responded. Our guess is this agitated them until they finally decided to go on the attack, of course this is a guess.

The pedophile claim requires no evidence and yet is still lethal. Once such a claim is made, it generally destroys a person’s reputation, even if it’s false. However, Anderson has more than enough dirt to discredit him, especially the video to which he threatens the lives of multiple people. While he tries to smear a creditable journalist, I fully believe it will be him who will lose.

While I write this, there are sites that appear to be gathering evidence against Anderson. It seems their intent is to pursue criminal charges for his various cyber terroristic threats. Given what we have seen thus far, we wish these sites the best of luck.

John Anderson: quick review

Normally, I try to avoid writing about idiots and their frivolous smear campaigns. However, there is one being conducted that reminds me a bit to much of one I went through in 2017 and finally ended early this year. With that in mind, I felt compelled to write this. The group, “Support Actor John Anderson & Friends,” appears to be where it started. Their target: Meko Haze. Another group, presumed to be operated by the same people, “Monster Hunters,” has taken up the campaign as well. So who is John Anderson?

John Anderson is a self proclaimed “pedophile hunter.” in a recent post, to which they “expose” TDH Meko Haze, they go to say:

“This is the man we all confronted(,) associated with Elizabeth mason, John Aster, and many more exposed frauds and convicted pedophiles.
Keeps calling John Anderson’s number in direct attempt to ruin his case against Francesca Banfield and convicted pedophile John Aster, mark W Mumma, and more.
Meko just did a live trying to tarnish the case John Anderson has going against the exposed scum.
He keeps calling and using others to act as John Anderson in other calls he stages using spoofcalling.”

Let’s break this post down. To start, there is the accusation of being associated with frauds and pedophiles, they also claim to have confronted Meko. Upon our research, we found this to be completely false. To start, their idea of “confronting” is to block anybody who challenges this, or their various other claims; we learned this first hand when one of our guys called them out on their page and requested to see their evidence. This, if anything, confirmed with us that this was a case of slander. To address the pedophile aspect: this claim is derived because Meko is alleged to have a friend, who has a friend on the registry. That is not the claim made by their post, however.

They go onto list people he is apparantly in association with, another claim easily debunked. Not to long ago, “TDH” exposed Francesca Amato as a con-artist. If that is association, it’s a poorly done one. As for the other individuals listed, we found no evidence that they are pedophiles or any association with “The Daily Haze.” They go onto make the claim that Meko had been calling John Anderson. In a recent livestream conducted by Meko, not only is it obvious that John Anderson is the caller, it becomes clear that even this statement is false. The evidence further comes from another post Meko had made, to which he remarks about ignoring John’s wife who attempted to make contact months prior.

So let’s look into John Anderson. As I previously stated, he is a self proclaimed “pedophile hunter.” While he proclaims himself to be an “actor,” we had found no evidence to support this proclamation. But we did find a couple of videos, one that has Anderson in a world of trouble. In 2018, Anderson livestreamed a video. Within the video, he lists off individuals that he intended to murder. Within his list he names off Geri Pfeiffer, John Aster, and countless others; this is just one video. In a second video, Anderson can be seen attempting suicide. In the 35 minute video, Anderson is seen in a suicidal state speaking to an officer. While we essentially ruled this as an attention grabber, he had apparantly been called a pedophile himself. We find it ironic how those accused go onto orchestrate smear campaigns against others.

The issue with smear campaigns of this nature comes from the lack of evidence required to make it take flight. While no evidence is required to destroy an innocent life, the victim is often left having to prove the accusation false. The twisted aspect to this? Often times it is impossible for the victim to ever disprove the claim. In the end, the results of a campaign such as this will fall into two categories: those who believe the victim, and those who won’t.

For further information, and to see the videos, you can read the article published by “The Daily Haze” here.

“Advocate” exploits sexual abuse victim

In a perfect world, we wouldn’t have to write this article. Something that should be obvious, apparantly isn’t for Francesca Amato-Banfield. Obviously, you shouldn’t exploit a sexual abuse victim as a means of pushing sales on your book. Nor should you use such a case to gain momentum for your “organization.” Francesca has done both.

A video, containing a father and a child of approx 5yo, has the Facebook community in an uproar. In the video, the father, identified as Sean Windingland, is seen speaking to his daughter. We won’t go into full detail due to the graphic content. In short, it is him asking about her previous consent to perform sexual acts together. With a topic this hot, it is not to our amazement that the scammers would jump in.

Francesca, earlier today, did a livestream in which she displays the video. As a “child advocate,” the most fundamental understanding of protecting a victim child’s identity should be a no brainer. Francesca, however, failed to understand this. Blasting the uncensored video, initially posted by the group, “Pedo-Hunters,” the child’s face is seen to all. But the video goes downhill.

Within the first five minutes, Francesca (pictured below) begins promoting her own book. What starts out as a rant regarding a pedophile father, tirns into an advertisement for “best seller.” Within the video, she later begins advertising her own organization while pushing her radical agendas.

One thing is clear from watching this video. It is obvious that she conducted no research into the child’s situation. If Francesca had spent a little more time doing research, and less time advertising, she would had learned that the victim is now with the mother, away from the father. She would had also known that the child is completely safe, at this time, thus making her entire video redundant and void.

However, she failed to do any research. For Francesca, this appears to be a habitual problem. Rather it be making accusations against those who oppose her scam, bullying victims, or simply spouting off, it seems that she does next to no research into her claims. Her other pattern seems to be broadcastimg her book. A good writer has no need to push their work as she does. The reason is simply because it’s good. The readers would spread it around naturally. The fact that she has to constantly advertise her book leads me to question its sells. Has it sold only a few copies?

Regardless of this, it is clear that Francesca screwed up here. As an advocate she should had placed the safety and dignity of this child first. She should had declined to show the video, perhaps just played the audio. However, because Francesca saw an oppurtunity to advertise, she may have done more harm than good. This young girl’s face will forever be online, her story and identity exposed to the entire world. Not only was this neglectful, this was absolutely immoral.

A simple blurring of the girl’s face would had prevented many things. It would had also se ured the child’s integrity. Because Francesca was more concerned about making a quick dollar, this child’s identity has been further exposed. What effects it will have on the girl are yet to be seen. What is crystal clear, however, is bow low Francesca is willing to go just to promote a book and organization.

Is the movement a failure? A review of the CPS movement

If there is something that can be disputed, chances are it has a movement against it. So it should be presumed that something as contraversial as CPS/DFS would rally an entire network of advocates, activists, and victims alike. Because of current technology, as well as social media, to get involved in such a movement is fairly easy, to say the least. But is this movement legit or is it just a satiracal joke?

The CPS movement, as a whole, has a rather powerful concept with an equally powerful message. Like a painter crafting on their easle, they blast a powerful message: “stop taking, killing, adopting, and trafficking our children!” From the outside, the movement appears to be an army worthy of any advesary. From the inside, that’s where we begin to see its true form.

As journalists, we often get the “help me” cries. Parents who have lost their children, blindly walking into a maze littered with snakes, waiting to strike their heels. To conduct a story on such cases, however, we have to establish credibility for it. For example, if a parent gave their child “Drano,” obviously, we couldn’t absolve them within the article. For the parents that don’t contact independent media platforms, they reach out to the advocates of Facebook. But are they safe in doing so?

In a perfect world, they would be. However, as recent and old articles demonstrate, that is not always the case. With any movement of potential, there are always preditorial people hoping to make a quick dollar from it; the CPS movement is of no exception. Sadly, this sort of movement seems to attract these predators.

In 2017, we all witnessed the first of these people. A CPS case, which was still open at thus point, had case files blasted all over Facebook by a 501c3 organization. The organization obtained intimate details of the open case, and in a sudden “smear campaign” released these documents for the entire world to see. People, naturally were enraged, at least those with ethics, and began a counter assault. By the end of it, people were accused of “pedophilia,” actively, and offline, stalked, and smeared along with the CPS victim.

But this is one example. Another organization, ran by Connie Reguli, willfully allowed a convicted pedophile into her group. During this time, until his account was was terminated per Facebook policy, he had been collecting information for a book. However, when reading his book, all we found was a confession to his crimes alongside material written by others. Where did the various collected information really go?

Beyond that, we have another woman pushing the sovereign citizen agenda, the very ones that landed Ronnie Davis in prison. She pushes an affadavit, a highly illegal one at that, claiming it will help in any CPS case. While a magical “cure-all” would seem appealing, her claim isn’t without flaw. First, why hasn’t she posted evidence that it works? And why has nobody come out to reinforce that it works?

These are just a few examples of the plagues within the movement. But there are more problems than just scammers and cons; the movement has issues within its actual legitimate groups. Many, if not nearly all, of the groups suffer from “in fighting.” In fighting is a commonly used term to which advocate A deals a blow to advocate B and so on. When a group is dealing with victims, stress is the last thing they need. However, the fighting continues regardless. But it doean’t stop there.

Over the years, we have gotten many CPS coverage requests. For whatever reason a child was taken and the parents need the media. For 99.9% of these claims, they share one commonality. Upon being asked for documentation, primarily sl we have an understanding of the case as CPS sees it, we never actually get those. When asked, the families grow silent all while slamming CPS for removing the child(ren.) It almost seems like they have something to hide. Credibilty is everything within a movement. If the movement lacks credibility, nobody will take it seriously. But, this movement has a few redeeming, and legit people.

For some advocates, merely speaking out isn’t enough. In fact, some cover a variety of subjects. For instance, Randy Davis of team #revitup. Rosemary Dalton of M.A.F.A., and even Geri Pfieffer of America’s Taken Children. These groups, and organizations, are a collective of passionate indivuduals. While they work in different ways, they work together, even if they are unaware of this factor.

Team #revitup, if you are unaware is the “no bulls***” group. With Randy Davis, no relation to Ronnie, the corrupted are exposed in elegant glamour. M.A.F.A. is the group of compassion. Ms. Dalton has devoted many years of her life, even with failing health, to comfort and show love to families in need. America’s Taken targets the children who have been forcibly adopted. With her group, she gives these families the tools to potentially reunite and become a family once more.

Every movement has its flaws, thisone is by far an exception. But, like any movement, you can see the darkness within or you can choose to see through the darkness within. While we do not believe the entire movement is legit, there are glimpses of truth and credibility within the twisted wreckage. That is what we should be promoting.